Ship Design & the 'Plankwells'
Phil Pugliese 19 Jun 2014 11:31 UTC
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 6/18/14, Jim Kundert <gypsycomet@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: [TML] Re: Daily digest for tml@simplelists.com
To: tml@simplelists.com
Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 5:11 PM
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Phil Pugliese
(via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>
wrote:
I
believe the original CT '20% fudge-factor rule' was
intended to avoid making ship design too complicated.
GDW/DGP moved away from this when they made the MT rules
soooo complicated that they couldn't even follow the
rules themselves! (ie: 'Shattered Sh*ts' et al)
IMO, it's just no fun anymore when that
happens...
GDW stopped making statements about
deckplans, and DGP decided to ignore the rules altogether.
The "fudge factor" was specific to deckplans,
not to construction math. At least, it was back then. T5
has a similar approach to construction math, then tells you
the effects of going over or under the hull's putative
size.
Shattered Ships designs showed every indication
of being done with a flawed spreadsheet. I know the work on
my private one was ongoing, so the idea that an in-house
design spreadsheet might be flawed is not in the least bit
surprising.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense & also would explain a lot of things...
I, myself, always followed the construction math pretty rigorously but would I was much more lax when it came to actually mapping the ship out...
Haven't done that in a while though.
As a side note; I note that Mongoose has 'retrofitted' the 'Plankwell' class BB's with meson shields commensurate w/ their importance.
I still remember reading the supplement that detailed the IN Spinward Marches ships, reading the text about the Plankwells 'suffering high losses'<sic>, looking at the stats, noting the puny class-3 meson shield (the other BB's had the max, class-9) & thinking, "No wonder they keep blowing up. Jackie Fisher has been reincarnated & is back at work again!".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------