They Started to Fix LBB2 Fuel Burn...

[Grav_Moped]

One other thing: the HG 1%/Pn=1 month fuel rule is what makes battleriders viable as a distinct ship type. If maneuver used appreciable amounts of fuel (while acknowledging that the LBB2'77 flat-rate per g-turn is laughably bad, of course), battleriders would need starship-sized fuel tanks (and starships would just trade their available jump range for maneuver endurance during combat).

I mean, you've already got the "what if you built a battlerider with Jump-1 as a fallback?" concept out there.

 

[infojunky]

Yes.

He did a presentation at a convention in San Francisco that they posted, so I listened to it. I can't find it anymore.

CelestiCon <sp?> Most likely I was there. Also know the organizer, so I could ask him about the link.

As I understand it, it's the tech in his book "Chain of Command", which I have not read.

Me neither.

 

[infojunky]

79 didn't have EPs? I knew it either didn't have agility, or at least that agility wasn't important.
I really should get a copy (and one of LBB2'77) for reference...

Power plants where rated like the other drives with the then max of six. Which leads to interesting limitation on Maneuver Drives as a Powerplant 6 didn’t become available till TL 12.

I like how armor is handled in 79. It’s a binary option either a ship is armored or not, TL being the controlling factor of armor performance.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Power plants where rated like the other drives with the then max of six. Which leads to interesting limitation on Maneuver Drives as a Powerplant 6 didn’t become available till TL 12.

I like how armor is handled in 79. It’s a binary option either a ship is armored or not, TL being the controlling factor of armor performance.

Ah. Explains a lot about Azhantis...

Interesting approach to armor, that.

There probably are whole levels of untold arguments that went into the Classic transition from First to Second Editions.

In any case, I'm still looking at fuel consumption and mandatory allocations, and the flavor text that describes how power is actually used, and trying to decide whether to scratch my head in puzzlement, or facepalm. It looks like they were trying to close loopholes as they went along, and never looked back at what all the patches did when you took them as a whole.

 

[mike wightman]

Is this the FC interview you mean?

http://www.celesticon.com/Podcasts/Frank%20Chadwick%2030%20Years%20of%20Striker.mp3

 

[AnotherDilbert]

79 didn't have EPs?

No, no energy budget. It's like LBB2'81, power plant must be MAX( Jn, Mn ).

 

[Grav_Moped]

No, no energy budget. It's like LBB2'81, power plant must be MAX( Jn, Mn ).

Ah, so half a step toward '81 (closing the rules glitch that enabled the XBoat, among other things), while keeping the LBB2'77 torch drives and enabling battle riders.

 

[whartung]

Is this the FC interview you mean?

http://www.celesticon.com/Podcasts/Frank%20Chadwick%2030%20Years%20of%20Striker.mp3

Probably, I'd have to listen to the whole thing to be sure. I think he did more than one, and I may have heard some of the others. But this is likely it. How he gets from Striker to fusion drives, I can't say.

 

[whartung]

Is this the FC interview you mean?

So, I finally (finally) listened through the whole thing and, while actually quite interesting, it's not the specific one that I'm thinking about. But it was a Celesticon event, I do remember that.

An interesting insight the he mentioned was that if he were to do TNE again, he would have done it in the Long Night. They underestimated how upset folks would be when they wrecked the Imperium.

And, looking back, imagine what the consequence of that could have been. Would we have a GURPS Traveller if that didn't happen? I don't know if the impetus for GT was what happened to the Imperium (and, ensuring it didn't happen) vs just rebirthing the Traveller canon in a new game system.

Do you have other links?