Mongoose 2300AD Progress Report

[middenface]

I really like your 2300AD vehicles, you have the classic look down cold.

Consider that a hint, Mr. Sprange.

Thanks Colin... look what you have made me do..

http://biomassart.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/traveller-2300-bridgeport-swift-songbird/

Not quite the Warbird version yet...got a bit carried away on the detailing.

 

[middenface]

Not quite the Warbird version yet...got a bit carried away on the detailing.

M9.. US Hover Tank


http://biomassart.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/traveller-2300-m9-hover-tank/

Dammit got deckplans to do...

 

[aelius]

I know the background materials always said the M9 was less advanced that the Aerochar. Call me old fashioned but I want a turret on my tank. Something that lets me shoot in a direction other than the one I am traveling in.
Beautiful work middenface. I would be happy to see your art in the book.

 

[barnest2]

You were working of a design, right Ian? Because, damn that's not a good design. Look at the ricochet traps! Ouch...

ETA:

Dammit got deckplans to do...

Yes, you do

 

[Colin]

I know the background materials always said the M9 was less advanced that the Aerochar. Call me old fashioned but I want a turret on my tank. Something that lets me shoot in a direction other than the one I am traveling in.
Beautiful work middenface. I would be happy to see your art in the book.

The AC-8 and the M9 are more-or-less contemporaries. The US still retains the M9 as a front line tank because the US Army hasn't fought a war in a couple of generations (in 2300). Only the Marines, when on loan to the French, see much action, and they tend to use French transportation and equipment in such cases. The AC-8 wasn't a successful design, in large part because of the lack of a turret.

 

[aelius]

Cool. I haven't read the 2300 stuff in a while and the details of the tanks have faded a bit.
Looking forward to refreshing my memory with the new book.

 

[middenface]

You were working of a design, right Ian? Because, damn that's not a good design. Look at the ricochet traps! Ouch...

ETA:

Dammit got deckplans to do...

Yes, you do

'Dammit Jim, I'm an artist not an engineer'

Yup pretty aware it has got it's fault, but it looks nice. You should have heard the comments when I posted the Luki on SciFi Meshes.... things about recoil and hover tanks...

Just sorted 16 decks of a 3000t ship... my eyes my eyes!

 

[AndrewW]

Just sorted 16 decks of a 3000t ship... my eyes my eyes!

Your ships be getting bigger.

 

[drdentista]

This. Is. Über-awesome! First RQ, then Traveller and now 2300AD. All my favourite old-school RPGs re-born in one publishing house

I'll buy it. Definitively

 

[Colin]

'Dammit Jim, I'm an artist not an engineer'

Yup pretty aware it has got it's fault, but it looks nice. You should have heard the comments when I posted the Luki on SciFi Meshes.... things about recoil and hover tanks...

It's a coil gun. Recoil is much less than a CPR gun with the same muzzle energy. (Or, well, a little less... )

 

[GJD]

'Dammit Jim, I'm an artist not an engineer'

Yup pretty aware it has got it's fault, but it looks nice. You should have heard the comments when I posted the Luki on SciFi Meshes.... things about recoil and hover tanks...

It's a coil gun. Recoil is much less than a CPR gun with the same muzzle energy. (Or, well, a little less... )

Recoil for the equivalent muzzle energy of a CPR gun to a gauss weapon will be the same. equal and opposite reactions and all. the total energy expended will be less, as the efficency of a gauss weapon shold be higher - directly converting current to kinetic energy instead of all that messy chemical reaction by-products of smoke, light, heat and noise.

G.

 

[Ishmael]

coilgun recoil should be slightly less than a chemical gun recoil.
A coilgun only has to conserve momentum with a projectile while a chemical gun has to conserve momentum with the projectile and burned propellant by-products.

 

[Old300]

Crud. I've been working out conversions of Traveller 2300 to MGT. Starships gave me an interesting time and never fully completed it. Heard the release was sometime this year so focused my work on creating star systems from the main focus planet down to the asteroid belt. Big fan of old game Starflight so I like to run an exploration oriented campaign. Tried a testrun of MGT combat versus my version of Kafers and things got really interesting! Stuck with basics but thoroughly enjoyed it. Colin please hurry! Big fan of 2300 and am very much looking forward to its release.

 

[silburnl]

Better radiators are harder to detect passively, easier to detect actively.

That seems the wrong way round to me. If the radiator is putting out more photons it will have a higher emmissivity and make it easier for passive detectors to spot. Or by 'better' do you mean a higher letter rating than the PP? ie you have capacity to spare, so can reduce your radiation profile by selectively radiating along different threat axes etc

MHD power plants require smaller radiators than fusion and fission plants, and even fuel cells for a similar output.

Why? A MW is a MW when it comes to dumping waste heat...

Regards
Luke

 

[silburnl]

Combat in 2300 takes place at ranges of multiple light seconds. Energy weapons have an effective range of a few hundred thousand kilometers. In the old 2300 ship combat system 1 hex was 2 LS which gave energy weapons a range of 1 hex.

I always found the ranges for 2300 starship combat implausible given what I could dig up about the practical limits on energy weapons. My hack was simply to regard a hex on the ship-to-ship board as 0.2 light seconds across, a combat turn as 6 seconds and keep everything else in the combat mini-game the same.

Regards
Luke

 

[rust]

Why? A MW is a MW when it comes to dumping waste heat...

It would depend on the efficiency of the power plant, the higher the effi-
ciency, the lower the percentage of waste heat, the smaller the necessa-
ry radiator. So, if a MHD power plant has a higher efficiency than a fissi-
on or fusion power plant (I have no idea whether this is the game's as-
sumption, but it seems to be), the MHD power plant generates less waste
heat per MW of output and therefore requires less radiator surface than a
fission or fusion power plant.

 

[Colin]

Actually, in terms of efficiency, the fuel cell is most efficient. However, of the four power plants, the MHD system requires smaller radiators as it is dumping a significant portion of its waste heat as exhaust. All the others have to deal with their total waste heat using the radiators.

Larger radiators are better against passive sensors than smaller radiators, as they have a greater surface area to emit from, while the larger size makes them easier to spot with active sensors. Larger radiators will also have larger heat sinks, which can store more heat for longer.

 

[rust]

Actually, in terms of efficiency, the fuel cell is most efficient. However, of the four power plants, the MHD system requires smaller radiators as it is dumping a significant portion of its waste heat as exhaust. All the others have to deal with their total waste heat using the radiators.

Ah, I see - the MHD has an "external" exhaust.

 

[GJD]

Actually, in terms of efficiency, the fuel cell is most efficient. However, of the four power plants, the MHD system requires smaller radiators as it is dumping a significant portion of its waste heat as exhaust. All the others have to deal with their total waste heat using the radiators.

Ah, I see - the MHD has an "external" exhaust.

But no moving parts

G.

 

[middenface]

Just sorted 16 decks of a 3000t ship... my eyes my eyes!

Your ships be getting bigger.

Not quite.... 2000t is carried ship, he's a Battlerider mother ship. Still thats 16 decks, and about 6 are duplicates.