maneuver drives no fuel?

[Linwood]

I vote for M-Drive generated field-effect inertia sump <waves hands frantically in all possible directions>

That does raise some interesting questions about the relationship between energy and inertial damping...

 

[Geir]

Keep in mind that if it's the m-drive that gives you inertial dampening and not the ship's hull, then reaction engines at 16 g is, let's say a tad uncomfortable.

 

[AndrewW]

I vote for M-Drive generated field-effect inertia sump <waves hands frantically in all possible directions>

You forgot to say "These aren't the M-Drives you are looking for."

 

[Reynard]

I was under the impression when MgT (and T5) made higher g engines, compensators followed. This is especially true since maneuver went from 5 to 17 Gs (11 Gs for T5) while high burn thrusters on Ancient ships add another 16 Gs. That does make a case that ICs and grav plates are separate systems if the ship is only fielding reaction drives.

 

[Linwood]

Keep in mind that if it's the m-drive that gives you inertial dampening and not the ship's hull, then reaction engines at 16 g is, let's say a tad uncomfortable.

I’ve house-ruled that if you’re burning reaction mass everyone better be strapped in their acceleration couches. Probably doesn’t fit RAW but it makes things like combat repair actions more interesting...

 

[NOLATrav]

I vote for M-Drive generated field-effect inertia sump <waves hands frantically in all possible directions>

That does raise some interesting questions about the relationship between energy and inertial damping...

This is what we do. M-Drives generate twice their rating, half for thrust, half for inertial comp. So there’s some wiggle room trade offs possible, like increasing thrust vs lower comp, etc.

And yeah, had to tweak the energy points a bit but it’s just crunchy enough for my group without going into FF&S levels of madness.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I was under the impression when MgT (and T5) made higher g engines, compensators followed.

That is generally assumed, at least by me, but not mentioned in the MgT Core rules at all. High-G drives would be rather unusable without it...


In T5 Inertial Compensators comes free with any gravitic drive, including lifters, but not rockets or mechanical drives, for some unspecified reason. There seems to be no limit to Inertial Compensators so you can pile on as much rocket thrust as you wish.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I vote for M-Drive generated field-effect inertia sump <waves hands frantically in all possible directions>

There is no need for magic handwaving. If we have artificial gravity, we have all the technology we need to build "inertial compensators".

Just set up an artificial gravity field in the ship directly opposite the perceived acceleration and it is done.

This is what CT-T4 explicitly specified, e.g.:

... the grav plates integral to most ship decks, and which allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal.

 

[Sigtrygg]

There is a high g fighter in T4 with a rating of 14g IIRC - have to check the exact details.

FF&S for T4 clarified that you could stack acceleration compensators to achieve whatever mitigation you require.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

FF&S for T4 clarified that you could stack acceleration compensators to achieve whatever mitigation you require.

It's an optional rule in CSC, not FF&S, but OK once the cat is out of the bag...

 

[Condottiere]

One theory I had was the bazooka effect, which would require the manoeuvre drives to be along the central axis, positioned in the rear.