Maneuver Thrust CT vs GT

[Gadrin]

One thing I've noticed is that CT ships have much nicer maneuver
thrust than the GURPS versions.

Most of the small craft can easily do 2+ Gs, maybe more, while GURPS
seems to save that for only certain few.

I suppose GURPS is just more conservative ?


>

 

[mbrinkhues]

GURPS uses a mass-based thruster system. That is each dton of thrusters installed delivers between 5 and 100tons of thrust. And many small craft / low tech ships have to choose between decend cargo holds and decend accelleration

 

[Gadrin]

GURPS uses a mass-based thruster system. That is each dton of thrusters installed delivers between 5 and 100tons of thrust. And many small craft / low tech ships have to choose between decend cargo holds and decend accelleration

5 and 100 that's quite a disparity.

I'm just trying to decide if the trade-off is worth it. For civilian cargo ships it probably is, but small craft are usually pressed into transport/courier roles.

Maybe it's just my feeling that things are wimped-out


>

 

[atpollard]

5 and 100 that's quite a disparity.

I'm just trying to decide if the trade-off is worth it. For civilian cargo ships it probably is, but small craft are usually pressed into transport/courier roles.

Maybe it's just my feeling that things are wimped-out

>

Since surface to orbit is less than 15 minutes at 1G - a reactionless drive capable of 6G for 30 days is actually overkill - even for a fighter!

Real world systems pale in comparison to the magic drives of Traveller.

 

[Gadrin]

Since surface to orbit is less than 15 minutes at 1G - a reactionless drive capable of 6G for 30 days is actually overkill - even for a fighter!

Real world systems pale in comparison to the magic drives of Traveller.

Oh yes, however the GURPS Traveller fusion drives I've seen aren't that impressive, by space game standards. Could be my expectations are simply to over-the-top.

I've seen other GURPS drives that offer Fast Fusion or propulsion drives. I don't want Star Trek, but I do like a bit more oomph, for convential vessels.


>

 

[atpollard]

Oh yes, however the GURPS Traveller fusion drives I've seen aren't that impressive, by space game standards. Could be my expectations are simply to over-the-top.

I've seen other GURPS drives that offer Fast Fusion or propulsion drives. I don't want Star Trek, but I do like a bit more oomph, for convential vessels.
>

Project Rho/The Atomic Rocket page talks about that classic problem:

• Any realistic drive means it takes weeks/months/years to travel world to world in one solar system - too long for fun.
  
• Any 'Interesting Drive' (reduces travel time to hours/days) is also a Weapon of Mass Distruction and probably violates one or more laws of physics.

I've personally felt that dropping inertial compensation would have helped a great deal. Then 1G becomes the civilian standard for MD performance and 2G is the best that a military vessel can sustain (crew= young, heathy and specially conditioned to sustained high gravity). Speeds of 3G to 6G can still happen, but now they are restricted to combat maneuvers (10 minutes exposure or less).

 

[mbrinkhues]

Oh yes, however the GURPS Traveller fusion drives I've seen aren't that impressive, by space game standards. Could be my expectations are simply to over-the-top.

I've seen other GURPS drives that offer Fast Fusion or propulsion drives. I don't want Star Trek, but I do like a bit more oomph, for convential vessels.


>

GT normally does not use Fusion-drives, only the GTL9 "Sword World" ships have fuel-using engines in the game. All other craft use the old fashioned "thrust from energy" style Traveller drives

 

[Gadrin]

Ya, reactionless drives, but then you have no Firefly shuttles roaring off or zipping in and announcing their presence.

One of my favorite movie spots is the Falcon taking off in hurry from Hoth.

Not sure how "realistic" this is but I like it...

[SIZE=+1]10-ton Firefly Shuttle-class Shuttle, Shuttle One (TL9)[/SIZE]

Crew: 1 Total. 1 Command and Control, 1 Maintenance.
Hull: 10-ton VGSL, non Lifting Body, Light Frame, Standard Materials, Titanium Alloy (Standard) Armored Hull (DR 100), Standard Compartmentalization.
Control Areas: Cockpit/Systems (Complexity 5).
Communicator Range (mi) Radio Maser Laser Meson
Cockpit/Systems 1,000,000 0 200,000 0
Sensors Range/Rating (mi) Passive Active Radscanner
Cockpit/Systems 4,500/33 20,000/37 100/23

Engineering: 9 Sm Fusion Rocket (2.41 Gs), 0.5 Cryonic Internal Tank (Fire 0, Loaded with 0.5 stons), Sm Utility.
Accommodations: Sm Passenger Seating (6 Passengers).
Stores: 0.5 Hold (8 dtons free for cargo).
Statistics: EMass 52.8 stons, LMass 93.3 stons, Cost MCr6.57, HP 1,350, Damage Threshold 270, Size Mod 6, HT 12. 12.3 Man-Hours/day Maintenance,
Space Performance: sAcc 2.41 / 4.26 Gs.
Air Performance: aSpeed 740 mph, Skimming aSpeed 8,661 mph, aLift 225 stons.
Underwater Performance: Unable to Submerge.
Sample Times : Orbit 0.09 Hrs, Escape Velocity 0.13 Hrs, 100D 4.11 Hrs, Earth-Mars 70.59 Hrs.


Software Package Qty % Utilization Description
Datalink 1 0.0000 C1 Library Data 1 0.0000 C1 Totals
0.0000

Options
All times are Earth Std, Full Load.
100D and Earth-Mars assume mid-point turnover.
Turrets add to Jump Tonnage for Jump Drive/Fuel calculations

Printed with GTS Version 2.29.07 on 7/26/2008 12:20:14 PM
Copyright © 2000 by Jay Alverson

>

 

[Gadrin]

Using "small HEPLAR" with that program and TL10 I got a

Space Performance: sAcc 1.36 / 2.24 Gs.


But my gear-o-cephallicy is limited


>