Mongoose 2300AD: MgT2300AD comments

[McPerth]

Sttuterwarp drive table (pages 199-200):

The tonnage and Price for Old Commercial drives are lower tan otheres, while the New Military ones are the ones with higer tonnage and price. While in the case of price this is logical, I'm afraid the tonages should be reversed, NM being the one that needs lower tonage and OC the one needing higer.

Even with the modifiers to stutterwarp (x 1.07 for NC/OM and x 1.15 for NM), the more efficient one is the OC.

Even so, when you feature the PP on the equation, things change a little (to say the least)

To give you an example, if we have a 1000 dton ship and we want a warp performance of 2:

Warp drive	WP(modified)	tonnage	cost(MLv)	PP tonnage	PP cost	Total Tonnage	Total cost
P(OC)	2.18	1.93	5.79	35.71	3.13	37.64	8.92
N(NC/OM)	2.16	2.03	6.09	28.57	2.5	30.6	8.59
M(NM)	2.12	2.14	6.41	21.43	1.88	23.59	8.29

But if the hull was only 400 dton, to reach WP 2 you'd need L rated WP even if using NM tech (WP 1.73 x 1.15 = 1.99).

For this table, PP is assumed to be the same letter than WD, and in all cases OC tech MHD. So, if you were using NC/OM or NM MHD tech, the tonnage saved will be greater, while the cost will raise a Little. Costs/tonnage for raditors and fuel are not featured in the table.

So, it seems it might be efficient on large hulls, or for higher WP, where it allows you to have smaller PP and reach the same WP, while the WP diference in smaller hulls with low WP makes them inefficient. It seems it must be calculated on a case per case basis to see if it allows you to reduce your PP size.

 

[LiNeNoiSe]

I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the NAM design sequence. You might try asking somebody on the 2300NonCanon mailing list.

 

[McPerth]

Another point:

In the ship design again, the prices for the fuel cells in the table in page 201 are (IMHO) too high. The Price for a H rated one (30/60/120 MLv, for OC/NC/NM tech respectivelly) are higher than a nuclear plant (both, fision or fusion) of higher rate., while the space saved is not so if you also account for the fuel, and the crew needs not too lower.

 

[McPerth]

One more question:

Are starship weapons allowed to be used as orillery (ground support) in MgT2300AD?

This is usual practice in most traveller rules, and I understand in MgT too, but Classic 2300AD rules (mostly Star Cruiser) expressely forbade the use of space weaponry against atmosphere protected targets.

So, when adapting the 2300AD setting to MgT rules, one can take the rules or the setting. As nothing is said (or at least nothing I have read) in MgT2300AD, one can asume that basic MgT applies, but this will alter the setting quite a lot, allowing for planetary defense batteries and orbital bombardement with starship weapons.

 

[SpaceBadger]

So, when adapting the 2300AD setting to MgT rules, one can take the rules or the setting. As nothing is said (or at least nothing I have read) in MgT2300AD, one can asume that basic MgT applies, but this will alter the setting quite a lot, allowing for planetary defense batteries and orbital bombardement with starship weapons.

I'd say go w the 2300AD setting on this, as it may have been overlooked in writing up the MgT version of the setting. Why let the supposedly generic ruleset change something this important in the setting, at least without a definitive statement one way or the other? The rules are to enable the game in the setting you choose.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

I recall reading somewhere that in the setting though nukes are available, from a mental psyche standpoint because of the Twighlight War, no one ever wants to use them on a planetary surface.

 

[Strithe]

One more question:

Are starship weapons allowed to be used as orillery (ground support) in MgT2300AD?

This is usual practice in most traveller rules, and I understand in MgT too, but Classic 2300AD rules (mostly Star Cruiser) expressely forbade the use of space weaponry against atmosphere protected targets.

So, when adapting the 2300AD setting to MgT rules, one can take the rules or the setting. As nothing is said (or at least nothing I have read) in MgT2300AD, one can asume that basic MgT applies, but this will alter the setting quite a lot, allowing for planetary defense batteries and orbital bombardement with starship weapons.

I'd rule that they can be used as such if attacking from low orbit, but probably don't work particularly well (reduced damage, not particularly accurate). The fact that the Roland-class Protected Courier (basically a modified Aconit) has autocannons for use in atmosphere seems to reinforce this idea.

For ground-based weapons, the Tribal-class frigate (a wet-navy ship) in Tools for Frontier Living says that it can fire rocket-boosted ammunition from its 8cm mass driver to hit orbital targets, although given the conversion ratio of vehicle-scale to starship scale damage it's not going to effect much beyond a satellite, even if you do like I do & use a 10:1 instead of a 50:1 ratio.

 

[McPerth]

I'd rule that they can be used as such if attacking from low orbit, but probably don't work particularly well (reduced damage, not particularly accurate). The fact that the Roland-class Protected Courier (basically a modified Aconit) has autocannons for use in atmosphere seems to reinforce this idea.

Well, when talking about inability for starship weapons to be used as ground attack for atmosphere protected targets, I'd sure exclude the railguns (that were not in C2300AD), as, even if at reduced accuracy, as you tell, they sure may be used. the problem is about other ship weaponry:

- Lasers: explicity unable to in Star Cruiser, able to in most traveller versions.

- PA: same as lasers in Star Cruiser. Unable to fire against atmosphere protected targets in CT/MT. Nothing said (AFAIK) in MgT (see This thread). IDK about other versions.

- Missiles: taken out the equation for being under the 0.1 G treeshold.

- Submunitions: may be used as nukes (specifically allowed in Three Blind Mice, Challenge 37, but not specific rules given). See Nathan Brazil post above too.

For ground-based weapons, the Tribal-class frigate (a wet-navy ship) in Tools for Frontier Living says that it can fire rocket-boosted ammunition from its 8cm mass driver to hit orbital targets, although given the conversion ratio of vehicle-scale to starship scale damage it's not going to effect much beyond a satellite, even if you do like I do & use a 10:1 instead of a 50:1 ratio.

I agree than CT2300AD lasers are not 250 Mw lasers from CT/MT, but use only 1 Mw from the power plant, so it's logical to asume that the ships are less armored too (after all nor the superdense materials exist in 2300AD, not most of its crafts need to endure atmospheric reentries).

This was quite discussed in This thread.

 

[BMonnery]

If that doesn't work, as the GM just make up your own pop sizes as you feel they need to be for your game!

Earth Sourcebook gave population figures.

Inca Republic = 127,957,000
Germany = 105,238,000
France =
European France = 106,902,000
Guyana = 6,415,000
North Africa = 173,003,000 (a mixture of French departments and French client states)
Ivory Coast Union = 281,021,000
French Central Africa = 428,217,000
French Empire on Earth = ca. 1 billion (ca. 19% of Earths population of 5.38 million)

 

[McPerth]

Yet another thing:

In the crew confort facilities (Internal components, page 207) we have he swimming pools. As written in the book:

Pools can be contained in either the zero-gravity portion of the ship or in the gravity section.

Am I the only one thinking that pools in the zero gravity portions of the ship would add more to the mess than to the confort?

 

[Brandon C]

Am I the only one thinking that pools in the zero gravity portions of the ship would add more to the mess than to the confort?

If the pool was basically a water tank with access via an airlock ...

 

[McPerth]

If the pool was basically a water tank with access via an airlock ...

English is not my language, but I guess there's a difference among this water tank and a pool.

As I understand it, a pool includes the adjacent zone and the swiming pool itself, and it's not intended for you to wear respiratory support or diving equipment, as the water tank would need, but to float and swim in water and relax yourself.

I'm not sure this water tank where you'd need this respiratory support would be seen as something comfortable (and so adding to confort) by most of the passage...

 

[Reban]

If you've seen the movie Passengers with Jennifer Lawrence far from being just messy, a pool in zero gravity could be deadly.

There's an interesting making of video here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox9c9azKwAw where they claim to have based the water movement on International Space Station research.

 

[McPerth]

Far from comfortable, I'd say...

 

[Brandon C]

English is not my language, but I guess there's a difference among this water tank and a pool.

Quite a bit, yes, although with pentapod underwater breathing masks, it becomes less of an issue.

As I understand it, a pool includes the adjacent zone and the swiming pool itself, and it's not intended for you to wear respiratory support or diving equipment, as the water tank would need, but to float and swim in water and relax yourself.

Correct. FWIW, in GT it is recommended that a water tank be installed adjacent to a swimming pool in case of a loss of gravity, so the water can be safely stored.

 

[McPerth]

Quite a bit, yes, although with pentapod underwater breathing masks, it becomes less of an issue.

Well, as you mention them, Maybe the pentapods will find it relaxing . After all, IIRC, they are originally acuatic...