For which system do you want to see new ship and vehicle designs?

[Golan2072]

For which system do you want to see new ship and vehicle designs?

 

[Jame]

I would like more ShipGen for CT, both High Guard and LBB2. Most of what I want involves making stuff smaller and less expensive *computerscoughcoughcough* and allowing for slightly larger ships at slightly lower TLs.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Jame:
Most of what I want involves making stuff smaller and less expensive *computerscoughcoughcough* and allowing for slightly larger ships at slightly lower TLs.

One approach would be to have a house-rule that allows larger ships to be built at lower TLs, BUT using multiple computers. So if, say, at your TL the best computer supports 5,000 dtons, you could have even an 20,000 dtons ship using four of such computers. The only problem with such approach is that HGS (the program which makes High Guard designs painless) doesn't support this.

I have a certain liking to the LBB2 design system, probably due to them being geared towards small, PC-scale ships, and being a simpler "drop-in" component system. On theother hand, HG is a far more versatile system. The problem I have with both are their attached combat systems: LBB2 uses vectors (which complicates things), while HG is cumbersome, has certain design pitfalls, and is geared towards big ships far away from the PC scale.

 

[Stainless]

I'm heartened by the current response for MT. It seems most publications nowdays are for either CT or d20 or combined, with MT never getting a look-in. Although granted, there are increasingly systemless publications. I suspect MT got bad press due to the very poor proof reading quality of the rules, and the nature of the Official Background. However, if I recall correctly, when polls have been made about which is the best Task System, MT usually wins. That's why I picked it as my rules set. More support for MT I say!

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Stainless:
I suspect MT got bad press due to the very poor proof reading quality of the rules, and the nature of the Official Background. However, if I recall correctly, when polls have been made about which is the best Task System, MT usually wins. That's why I picked it as my rules set. More support for MT I say!

I suspect the whole intellectual property/forbidden canon issue surrounding all of the DGP work from the time period of MT is as much to blame for this lack of support as anything. The problem with writing into that time period using only canonical sources which Marc still has rights to (without touching on the forbidden canon) is probably enough to deter most folks. (Now, OTOH, I'm sure it can be done).

 

[Vargas]

Originally posted by Stainless:
I suspect MT got bad press due to the very poor proof reading quality of the rules, and the nature of the Official Background.

Personally I found it to be overly complex.