• 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.

To MT or not to MT

Originally posted by Old Badger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
From where I sit, one's best bet is to go ahead and use the MT systems for everything except:
</font>
  • Trade and Commerce</font>
  • Ship/Vehicle Design</font>
  • Ship Combat</font>
Aramis, could you tell me why you don't like the Ship/Vehicle design rules? I'm curious.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ship/Vehicledesign is too complicated.

I don't mind 4 axis design sequences (Cost, Mass, Volume, Power), but I do object to 7 significant digits in the designs for a player-scale ship.

I'd prefer a more HG-style approach with 4 layers: Ships (100TD+), Small Craft (10-200Td), Vehicles (0.1-20Td), and Personal Scale Equipment (0.01-1Td).

Each layer needs to be intercompatible (a problem with T20 vehicles; they aren't).

FF&S falls down because it covers everything to the liter and kilowatt, even on capital ships.

I dislike ship combat because I dislike HG's combat system; it's not PC Friendly in either incarnation.

As for T&C, I'm working on a hybrid of T20/MT that I think will work better than either alone.
 
Back
Top