GT:ISW ship design system

[mike wightman]

Now that I've had the chance to play with the final version there are lots of things I like about it:

number of hardpoints depend on surface area and is affected by configuration

bay weapons cost a different amount of hardpoints - 50t bays cost 8 hardpoints, while 100t bays cost 10

different sizes of bridge available

computers included in bridge tonnage

sensors bought separately

power plants rather than power slices

What do others think of it?

 

[The Oz]

Haven't seen it yet.

 

[JAFARR]

I don't do GT, but sounds like what has been my biggest dislikes about CT, HG, & MT have been worked on anyway.

 

[lordmalachdrim]

I like what I've seen of the ship design for GT:ISW, I only wish that there was more available.

 

[mike wightman]

I've designed a few.

I could post them here if you like

 

[lordmalachdrim]

I'd like too see your designs

 

[remoh]

I like the ISW ship design system. The new bridge sizes and lack of fuel for the Fission/Fusion powerplant make more sense to me.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Now that I've had the chance to play with the final version there are lots of things I like about it:

number of hardpoints depend on surface area and is affected by configuration

bay weapons cost a different amount of hardpoints - 50t bays cost 8 hardpoints, while 100t bays cost 10

Granted, this minimizes the number of hardpoints available, which is a Good Thing. And yet...

I was thinking about this while walking my dog tonight, and realized why this is more cumbersome: it trades one complication for two.

Have you tried simply raising the hardpoint cost of emplacements, in rough accordance with the increased "expense" of weapons according to this scheme?

In other words, hide the surface area complexity within the specs of the weapon bays, which are rather arbitrary anyhow, rather than muddy up the simplicity of a straight, boring linking of hardpoints to volume? You end up with the same relationship, but a much simpler (and long understood) hardpoint equation.

 

[TheDS]

Mucho simplero than previous attempts at simplicity, at least in my opinion. They could've gon one step further and just said that sufficient power plant capacity was also included in whatever power-using device we're talking about. Indeed, they could've gone even further and done the same for crew quarters. There's two unnecessary components gone.

But then there'd be people (like maybe even me) who'd gripe that there was no way to know how big the power plant was, or how big such and such was, and so on.

But overall, I think this is a vast improvement over other editions of Traveller, as long as you don't want the crunchy bits that let you make your own weapons (FFS).

 

[The Oz]

I have GT:IW now and I also like the ship design system. I like the modifiers that allow for how different hull configurations affect the number of hardpoints and the armor tonnage needed. I may steal these for MTU.

Lots of good stuff to steal in GT:IW, I think.