I see it more as a local contract and maintenance issue myself. My interpretation is that you can't easily service a TL13 ship at a TL9 starport, so for all those worlds they don't import above their TL. Not that you can't build or repair above your local TL, just that it's not easy or economical.Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
There are two problems with the 50 ton modular cutter in T20. The first is the requirement for a bridge the second is the fact that so many people are stuck on building ships at TL-9, with TL-9 Fusion plants.
I understand the concept that there are so many of the small craft that they might not have gotten around to replacing all of them, but the advantages of new build TL-13+ craft far outweigh any need to keep older models in service. The powerplant and weapons jump significantly, especially in small craft that anything before TL13 would be replaced in military service if only because they would stop stocking the parts to keep them running without upgrading the systems to TL13+.
I'm sorry that you dislike the plans. Like many of the other deckplans in existence, there is a bit of fudging going on. For example, for the other cylindrical small craft out there with one deck, the deckplans never really show how the entire volume is used and just present what is often a single deck that expands to take the diameter of the cylinder.Originally posted by Tekrat04:
I just purchase gas5 and i'm very disapointed with the deck plans.
Since when is the modular cutter 4.5m in diameter and only 24m long?
How do expect to fit 2 deck and a crawl space in cylinder 4.5m in diameter?
How can such a blatant and ovious mistake be allowed to hapen?
I very purposefully did not look at the GURPS Modular Cutter book (which I don't have) while working on our supplement, even to the point of not picking it up at GenCon for the cheap even after GAS-5 was done.Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
Yes, it's different to GURPS modular cutter assumtions, but we have no intention of stepping on Loren's work.
Yep, it even comes out to pretty close the right dimensionsOriginally posted by Scarecrow:
All this talk of Modular Cutters sent me scampering off to pour over my LBB 2 'Starships' and as I was reading the 'Cutter' entry it suddenly struck me, That's a bloody 'Eagle' transporter from Space 1999! Or very close, anyway.
Crow
Heh, yeah, I spotted that, too!Originally posted by Scarecrow:
All this talk of Modular Cutters sent me scampering off to pour over my LBB 2 'Starships' and as I was reading the 'Cutter' entry it suddenly struck me, That's a bloody 'Eagle' transporter from Space 1999! Or very close, anyway.
Crow
I do like Rob's work a lot, actually. That's a nice design. I'm not keen on the hard-edged doughnut on the tail end but the rest of it's really nice. And look, a module that isn't a perfect cylinder. In fact, a ship that isn't a perfect cylinder. It's like sweet-meets to mine eyes!Originally posted by far-trader:
Here's the graphic that got me to Eaglize the cutters in my game, back in the late 80s.
Naturally, the docking ring is a slightly different shape.Originally posted by Tekrat04:
If it's outside of the cylinder how is it suppose to fit into the docking ring like thoes found on a Broad Sword class merc cruiser?
Thanks for the kind words.Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I just purchased your book, fellas and I have to say for £1.50 it's well worth it. I do have one teensy observation, though. Isn't page 13 a bit pointless?