• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

MT Starship Design

J

jalberti

SOC-10
I think I am one the few who favors the MT starship design over all others. I like the details, and with a full set of errata, or the last printinfg of MT, do not have much trouble making a starship or grav tank. I like the fact that you can do starships, vehicles, aircraft (with COACC)and ship's with the Challenge article with the same system.

Anyone else feel the same way?
 
I think I am one the few who favors the MT starship design over all others. I like the details, and with a full set of errata, or the last printinfg of MT, do not have much trouble making a starship or grav tank. I like the fact that you can do starships, vehicles, aircraft (with COACC)and ship's with the Challenge article with the same system.

Anyone else feel the same way?
 
I think I am one the few who favors the MT starship design over all others. I like the details, and with a full set of errata, or the last printinfg of MT, do not have much trouble making a starship or grav tank. I like the fact that you can do starships, vehicles, aircraft (with COACC)and ship's with the Challenge article with the same system.

Anyone else feel the same way?
 
YES! Do a design for the Design challenge on the 'Fleet' thread! Would love to see what you come up with.

Ravs
 
YES! Do a design for the Design challenge on the 'Fleet' thread! Would love to see what you come up with.

Ravs
 
YES! Do a design for the Design challenge on the 'Fleet' thread! Would love to see what you come up with.

Ravs
 
I would not say 'above all others', but I have to admit that I only use MT or LBB2. For some reason, HG and I never got along and I never had the patience for FFS (not after I invested all the time in finally getting MT!).

Currently, I am working on a couple of ships that are built with MT, but Jump rating is ruled by LBB2 engine potential and computer rules. Conversly, I thought about using MT sensor/commo/life support volumes to help define that nagging LBB2 'bridge' tonnage.
 
I would not say 'above all others', but I have to admit that I only use MT or LBB2. For some reason, HG and I never got along and I never had the patience for FFS (not after I invested all the time in finally getting MT!).

Currently, I am working on a couple of ships that are built with MT, but Jump rating is ruled by LBB2 engine potential and computer rules. Conversly, I thought about using MT sensor/commo/life support volumes to help define that nagging LBB2 'bridge' tonnage.
 
I would not say 'above all others', but I have to admit that I only use MT or LBB2. For some reason, HG and I never got along and I never had the patience for FFS (not after I invested all the time in finally getting MT!).

Currently, I am working on a couple of ships that are built with MT, but Jump rating is ruled by LBB2 engine potential and computer rules. Conversly, I thought about using MT sensor/commo/life support volumes to help define that nagging LBB2 'bridge' tonnage.
 
Kind of a belated reply, but yes, I enjoy using the MT design system as well. To be fair though, it only really became enjoyable after I created an excel spreadsheet to automate parts of the design process.
 
Kind of a belated reply, but yes, I enjoy using the MT design system as well. To be fair though, it only really became enjoyable after I created an excel spreadsheet to automate parts of the design process.
 
Kind of a belated reply, but yes, I enjoy using the MT design system as well. To be fair though, it only really became enjoyable after I created an excel spreadsheet to automate parts of the design process.
 
I like the CONCEPT of a unified design system for all vehicles (land, sea, air and space). I just got the MT CD and am still wading through all of the details. So far, I like what I've seen - especially the lower tech reaction thrust rockets (I think that CT did itself a disservice by introducing Grav and Fusion at such a low TL. If they appeared at TL 10, the Imperium would be little changed, but worlds of TL 6 to TL 9 would have gained a lot more local color.)
 
I like the CONCEPT of a unified design system for all vehicles (land, sea, air and space). I just got the MT CD and am still wading through all of the details. So far, I like what I've seen - especially the lower tech reaction thrust rockets (I think that CT did itself a disservice by introducing Grav and Fusion at such a low TL. If they appeared at TL 10, the Imperium would be little changed, but worlds of TL 6 to TL 9 would have gained a lot more local color.)
 
I like the CONCEPT of a unified design system for all vehicles (land, sea, air and space). I just got the MT CD and am still wading through all of the details. So far, I like what I've seen - especially the lower tech reaction thrust rockets (I think that CT did itself a disservice by introducing Grav and Fusion at such a low TL. If they appeared at TL 10, the Imperium would be little changed, but worlds of TL 6 to TL 9 would have gained a lot more local color.)
 
I love the sheer volume and TL range of stuff available in MT vehicle design. But I never could really get into the thing; I think the detail is too high for me.

Originally posted by Renard Ruche:
Conversly, I thought about using MT sensor/commo/life support volumes to help define that nagging LBB2 'bridge' tonnage.
Click to expand...
That huge 'ol bridge is a bit... annoying.
 
I love the sheer volume and TL range of stuff available in MT vehicle design. But I never could really get into the thing; I think the detail is too high for me.

Originally posted by Renard Ruche:
Conversly, I thought about using MT sensor/commo/life support volumes to help define that nagging LBB2 'bridge' tonnage.
Click to expand...
That huge 'ol bridge is a bit... annoying.
 
I love the sheer volume and TL range of stuff available in MT vehicle design. But I never could really get into the thing; I think the detail is too high for me.

Originally posted by Renard Ruche:
Conversly, I thought about using MT sensor/commo/life support volumes to help define that nagging LBB2 'bridge' tonnage.
Click to expand...
That huge 'ol bridge is a bit... annoying.
 
As I'm a lazy bum I usually use a spreadsheet and concentrate on core properties of a vehicle/spacecraft.
So a design could be done in 5 minutes ....
 
As I'm a lazy bum I usually use a spreadsheet and concentrate on core properties of a vehicle/spacecraft.
So a design could be done in 5 minutes ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Starship Design Assistance
Replies
3
Views
642
Frewfrux
F
C
Adding wings to a bot
Replies
4
Views
806
Condottiere
C
M
Striker vehicles vs High Guard vehicle design
Replies
11
Views
534
Badenov
Badenov
Tobias
CT Only: The overwhelming utility of grav vehicles
8 9 10
Replies
191
Views
6K
Marcatlas
Marcatlas
Spinward Flow
Pondering starship evolution
31 32 33
Replies
642
Views
30K
Spinward Flow
Spinward Flow
Back
Top