Please Mongoose Fix the Vehicle Handbook

Then think about energy transfer and you will understand.
Your music box analogy would only work if radio somehow broke the laws of physics.
I understand energy transfer, but that doesn't change the basic truth that we don't know the underlying science behind gravitics. My pointis that we can describe what we would like it to do, we can guess at what **might** create that effect but beyond just detecting a gravity field we have no frame of reference on how it can be done.
Gravitics may as well be 'warp drive'... it's buzzword whoopee-tech.
 
This is one of those side projects I have been working on. I really like the idea of smoothing out the transition between Slots and Spaces and dTons. Basically <1ton uses Slots, <10 tons uses Spaces, and >10 tons uses dTons.

I also like the idea of making large vehicles (100 dton sandcrawlers or submarines or atmospheric grav aircraft carriers) that are compatible with High Guard.

I was hoping to make it a JTAS article
 
What's wrong with cubic metres and kilograms?

Or cubic feet and pounds. Anything but abstract units that don't mesh.

If 1dt = 10 spaces, 1space = 10 slots, and 1 slot is the base abstract unit then fair enough (or any other conversion number you want to suggest)

But variable, it's about such and such conversions...1dt is sometimes 10 spaces, sometimes 5, while the space is usually 4 slots, sometimes 10π/3 then its all worse than useless. And yes I just made those numbers up for the rant :)
 
And if it has the ability the crew should not use it.
Because the combat rules in Traveller are so "written in generalities" that My take on 3D combat and the use of turrets, bays, etc, is that the pilot of the craft simply rotates the craft around the front-rear axis and tada! 360 degree firing arcs in all directions. That is merely My narrative description of the rules, since from a rules standpoint, there is absolutely no difference in how it is described. In space combat arcs really aren't a thing, so that has been My workaround, but it works perfectly well with gunships in an atmosphere as well.
 
Correct. but there is an awful lot we do understand, can explain, use to make predictions that are correct, and engineer technology.

Without looking can you cite three things we know that will break the laws of physics as we understand them? There are also things that we do not know, and I can think of at least one thing we can never know.
 
Correct. but there is an awful lot we do understand, can explain, use to make predictions that are correct, and engineer technology.

Without looking can you cite three things we know that will break the laws of physics as we understand them? There are also things that we do not know, and I can think of at least one thing we can never know.
Time Travel, Negative Mass, and knowing the exact position of a subatomic particle through observation. Next snarky question?
 
Without looking can you cite three things we know that will break the laws of physics as we understand them? There are also things that we do not know, and I can think of at least one thing we can never know.
How about Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and the prevalence of matter over antimatter... so essentially the entire universe can't be explained by the laws of physics as we understand them. But you know, it's only science.
 
Back
Top