Merc Cruiser (EA6): Errata

[dancha]

Greetings, all:

First, another hearty THANK YOU to Michael and "Flynn" and the QLI crew for yet another _great_ product.

Second...I think I've found a mistake (in the "Major Variants" discussion concernng the number of turrets), so I thought I'd start this thread to track it and any others that might be found.

Referencing the Print version...as a 600dton vessel, I expect that it has six (6) turrets. That is clear to me in the discussion between 10-15. For example, in the Specifications section, it reads:

"As purchased, the basic armament consists of two double beam laser turrets and one triple missile turret. Three double beam turrets remain empty for retrofitting by the purchaser at a later stage."

However, on page 16, in the first paragraph of the Major Variants discussion, there's text that suggests there are eight (8) turrets:

"As manufactured, their basic armament consists of two double beam laser turrets and one triple missile turret. Five turrets remain empty."

I think that should read three turrets remain empty, right?

Thanks in advance,
Dan

 

[Michael Taylor]

It is an error, and will be fixed. Thankyou.

 

[hunter]

Uploading the corrected files now.


Hunter

 

[Falkayn]

I know this is probably too hard to fix, but it would be nice if the merc cruiser artwork showed the top-level bridge as the deckplans do.

Also, where can we see more of Bryan's great artwork?

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Falkayn:
I know this is probably too hard to fix, but it would be nice if the merc cruiser artwork showed the top-level bridge as the deckplans do.

It's retractable!?

Umm...it's the new 'Invisobridge'?!

Aw hell...

Also, where can we see more of Bryan's great artwork?

Almost any of our products.

I had a gallery of his stuff posted on an earlier incarnation of the site. I'll have to try and dig it up again.

Hunter

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Falkayn:
I know this is probably too hard to fix, but it would be nice if the merc cruiser artwork showed the top-level bridge as the deckplans do.

Also, where can we see more of Bryan's great artwork?

Heh, considering we tend to call Chameleon armor "invisoarmor" "invisobridge" works for me. How many MCr per dTon is the inviso(TM) option?

BG's also done some artwork for some campaign sites but since they're private I'll let him decide to divulge them or not.

I do like the old gallery. Had some neat concept artwork.

Casey

 

[Michael Taylor]

** Start handwave**

The bridge is semi-recessed into the hull so can't be seen to any degree from the angle BG drew it from.

**end handwave**

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by hunter:
I had a gallery of his stuff posted on an earlier incarnation of the site. I'll have to try and dig it up again.

LOVE to see that. One of the great things about T20 work is quality art like BG's interior illos.

Looking through my old T4 stuff I came across some BG work that is really quite nice. There is a picture in Pocket Empires that shows a bunch of ships around a space station. There is at least one or two there that are deserving of more detail, and his work in other books (e.g. Emperor's Vehicles) is great too.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
** Start handwave**

The bridge is semi-recessed into the hull so can't be seen to any degree from the angle BG drew it from.

**end handwave**

OK, so it's official because the author said so.

Perhaps the deckplans are wrong and the bridge is under the ship ... protects it from (un)friendly fire whilst landed and allows you to watch the ground approaching all the way in (no more guessing what's under the ship - although presumably you have cameras for that).

 

[Tekrat04]

I know this is probably too hard to fix, but it would be nice if the merc cruiser artwork showed the top-level bridge as the deckplans do.

That is not the only discrepancy between the deckplans and the artwork. If you look at the artwork deck A should extend the whole lenght of the ship and not just be a small section on the aft end. The fork section at the bow of deck B should not exist, it should be a full hammer head and the finlike projection in the fuel tanks should not be there. Deck C should be slightly wider than deck B, also the aft section bears no resemblance to one another. Judging by the landing legs deck D should not exist at all.

This begs the question: Was the artwork based on the deckplans or vise versa, or where they done independently of one another without anyone making shure they matched?

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by hunter:
I had a gallery of his stuff posted on an earlier incarnation of the site. I'll have to try and dig it up again.

Hunter

Well, as I was one asking for the art gallery restoration I'll add my please and thank-you here as well

And don't forget Ted Lindsey's related stuff too

 

[Michael Taylor]

Quote: "This begs the question: Was the artwork based on the deckplans or vise versa, or where they done independently of one another without anyone making shure they matched?"

The deckplans we done and given to BG for the picture.

 

[Tekrat04]

Quote: "The deckplans we done and given to BG for the picture."

Thanks you for your answer.

Criticle as this may sound there is a pressing need to improve the relationship between the artworks and the deckplans. This is not the first time it has happened that the artwork and the deckplans are not synchonized to one another. Other QLI product have suffered from the similar fate. Not that QLI is the only company to bear this problem, most of the GDW starships starting with CT onwards have similar discrepancies.

What can be done to solve this problem? I have no clear answer to give at this time, other than to keep in mind that a good starship design is more than just numbers, deckplans and artwork. All of those elements must work together and cannot be done separately form one another.

 

[clementk]

in print version:

no page numbers until page 5
then no page numbers on pages 6,7

Assault Boat on page 11 has 26 staterooms. Not bad for a 30dt smallcraft! Looks like a copy error from the Merc Cruiser.

p. 17 the small/assault boat looks like it has an airlock on the back; I suppose this is ok I just picture most smallcraft as having thrusters there and any airlock/ramps on the sides

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Casey:
in print version:

no page numbers until page 5
then no page numbers on pages 6,7

Assault Boat on page 11 has 26 staterooms. Not bad for a 30dt smallcraft! Looks like a copy error from the Merc Cruiser.

p. 17 the small/assault boat looks like it has an airlock on the back; I suppose this is ok I just picture most smallcraft as having thrusters there and any airlock/ramps on the sides

Most Armored Personell Carriers and Infantry Combat Vehicles have the loading ramp in the rear. THe reason is the vehicle then provides cover and concealment when dismebarking. Further it allows the Troop compartment to be in the rear of the vehicle and then has the bulk of the vehicle protecting the passenger compartment as well. After all it isn't just Claymore mines that are designed to be "Front Toward Enemy." When opening a door in a combat situation you don't want it to be in the direction that enemy fire is coming from.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Most Armored Personell Carriers and Infantry Combat Vehicles have the loading ramp in the rear.

<nod> Regardless this assault boat is a heavily modified slow boat which IIRC doesn't have a thruster layout like a pinnance, more like the ship's boat, modular cutter, etc. i.e. thrusters aft.

This is shown on p. 14 on the C Deck deckplan. A slow boat is in boat bay 1; granted that's not technically an assault boat. Still the design shouldn't deviate that much IMO and the assault boat retracts its wings when entering the boat bay. An airlock (two connected iris valves) is clearly shown on the upper lefthand side.

Back to the illustration on p. 17 the two smallcraft there have no wings that I can see, visible or retracted. Since the Javelin class has 2 30dt craftbays those could be ship's boats but again we run into the problem of it being an aft thruster design.

Of course the illo could be depicting something else or a design with split thrusters or whatever. <shrugs> Would have been cool to see an assault boat with wings deployed though.

 

[BetterThanLife]

OK here is a question. The Dark Tower has an additional two turrets but still has 36 Mercs. Where do the extra gunners bunk?

 

[BetterThanLife]

By the way, great Adventure and Superb Mercenary ticket.

 

[Michael Taylor]

"The Dark Tower has an additional two turrets but still has 36 Mercs. Where do the extra gunners bunk?"

I just saw this question. From memory my thinking was to cram the extra troops into the cargo bay.

 

[archhealer]

Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
"The Dark Tower has an additional two turrets but still has 36 Mercs. Where do the extra gunners bunk?"

I just saw this question. From memory my thinking was to cram the extra troops into the cargo bay.

"Damnit, we aren't paid enough to be packed in here like sardines. And what IS that smell??"

"Um, it appears to be a sardine, sir. Did this ship haul cargo before this mission?"

Sorry, that just popped into my head when I saw that. LOVE this EA, though.