msprange said:
Considering its role, gunports make perfect sense - it means the shuttle can land and act as an ad hoc bunker, without forcing the poor sods inside to run out into overwhelming fire, should that make itself evident upon arrival. It also allows one team to stay on board providing covering fire while another deploys. In effect, the shuttle is an APC, it just happens to cone down from orbit.
I realize it sounds cool, but operationally firing ports in APC's have severe limitations. Today on the US Bradley the only ones that remain are the ones in the rear ramp. If you've ever been in an APC - especially a fully loaded one with men and gear and equipment, you have very little room to move around. To utilize them
well you need to be able to stand up and have an external view. Also those who use firing ports (today at least) do NOT use their auto-rifles - again, using the Bradley as an example. There are actually a set of cut-down M-16's that have been modified to be used internally because an assault rifle is too long.
It would make more sense on a spacecraft to install smaller turrets, say a pair or even three, that can fire to port and starboard to provide anti-personnel fire. VRF Gauss guns would make short work of unprotected troops. I could see having a mix of laser/plasma cannon (unlimited ammo), VRF gauss gun, auto-grenade launchers to provide things like smoke, anti-laser aerosols, anti-personnel gas for non-lethal defenses, and good ol boom-booms for when you absolutely, positively want to make an impact. Conceivably you could have a belly-mounted missile launcher as well with anti-vehicle or HARM rounds.
Operationally you really don't want your only means of escape to be used as a temporary fortress. Anything capable of penetrating a spacecrafts hull is, most likely, going to shrug off a marine's rifle.
msprange said:
The high-g manoeuvres is a good point, and I did shilly-shally over that a little when I saw it. We can make an assumption that the grav plates in this shuttle are not 100% responsive, immediate, or effective, and just kick in enough to ensure them-drive is not lethal to the occupants. At the end of the day, I chose to leave that line in because I thought it might be fun in an actual adventure, but you are more than welcome to ignore it.
There's nothing inherently wrong with what is written here, but the explanation given doesn't fit the technology. If you wanted to keep it, all you need to do is simply adjust the explanation. For example, you could say that most pilots dial back or turn off the internal gravity field when making atmospheric landings where they expect enemy fire to be present. The power is then diverted to the primary drive for additional speed and maneuverability. However it does mean that the troops now experience the full effect of the maneuvers. Pilots who have VIP's or civilian variants very rarely employ this tactic. Something like that fits within the tech while still allowing the flavor and feel that you want to convey.
msprange said:
The wings featured in the art are part of the Streamlined nature of the shuttle - they are not the aerofin system itself, though I would say aerofins are part of their structure (perfectly logical to have them on the wings).
All of this is, of course, just our explanation. If you like some ideas for the deployment shuttle but not others, discard the latter and proceed with the former. We really won't mind!
That's fair. Flaps in regular aircraft do the same. Perhaps a line or two mentioning that the retractable aerofins, say a pair located dorsally and ventrally, are normally retracted and typically only get deployed when the craft needs to "come in hot", or something like that? Short descriptives like that allow those who are curious to have their answers while others can skip it and move on to what they feel is more important to them.
msprange said:
I hope you will find a lot more of value in Deployment Shuttle than the quibbles you cite - I was quite pleased with it, overall. It is not our intention to make the Third Imperium Star Trek or Star Wars, but we do want to allow referees looking for that style to be able to use Traveller.
It's not just quibbles here. I actually do hold MGT-branded supplements to a higher standard than I do any other publisher. Why? Because MGT is the license holder and thus your published material becomes the defacto standard. Any body else who publishes similar material gets a pass in that sense. Also MGT is a professional publishing house. You and your employee's make their living from doing this. I don't see it being unreasonable. I hold any professional publishing house to the same standard. When I buy books from FASA (old school, I know), or GDW, WoTC, etc, I expect them to do the same.
It seems you are seeing this as all negative when it's not. I hope you see it as constructive criticism to make your products better. And believe me, I'm NOT picking on MGT products. I will say the same thing about anybody else's work that I buy. As a consumer I'm paying for the right to, well, in your words, quibble!
