Time to plug an old conversion (that's out of date, but still works):
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/sg/fma_rpg.htm
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/sg/dogfight.htm
The mass/points conversion between FT and DS is floating in the archives
somewhere. Approx 1 FT2.5 mass = 25-30 DS2 CS. 1 FT NPV = ~160-200 DS2
pts.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
> -----Original Message-----
Being the FT list, lets thrash something out and get St Jon to include it in
the fluff of the next edition (of course, that reminds me of Vogon
paperwork, but no-ones perfect. :-)
A common crew quality item for FT is to use "striking the colours"
modified for SG/DS quality system. Roll equal or greater than current
threshold on Q die or strike. Another is that crew Q affect damage
control (Green = -1, Regular = normal, veteran = +1, Elite = +2), as
this is the "human element" of FT combat.
Re: Fighters; several posts already on the subject & also websearch for the
various FT campaign pages that are out there.
Re: Shuttles and background craft.
As 1 CF = ~20 crew in current fluff, around 1 non-combat shuttle per 2
CF and 1 combat shuttle per 5 CF gives a good "feel" to me. A shuttle would
hold a squad (maybe two) of troops each with 1 combat endurance (or less).
Note that as this is abstracted and there is no mass for hanger bays, they
couldn't be launched during combat operations. If you want to launch assault
shuttles during combat, they should be paid for (to cover the extra combat
reinforcing and blast doors to avoid missiles into the guts of the ship, etc,
etc).
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
> -----Original Message-----
I can also see the standard compliment of shuttles on board a ship to be
externally docked not taking up any really internal space. There is just a
airlock hatch, and you are in the shuttle. The shuttle is attached by clamps
to the ship, and allows for easy undocking but docking requires some
maneuverability, and may not be possible under
combat conditions.
These shuttle ports could also be where umbilicials, and ship docking couplers
could also attach. Something like a personal transfer pod, or utility shuttle
reqally doesn't need a docking bay, just a space on the hull and an airlock.
With fittings like this, they could also easily act as escape pods/craft
as well since no bay is required.
In streamlined designs the shuttles could be in recessed bays on the outside
of the hull, only enough space to hold the shuttle and some umbilical
connectors. Bays like these are not meant to be servicable and docking would
be harder. - Another possibility is custom designed shuttlecraft that
match the streamlining and can sit esternally or partially recessed, their
form merging with the outer streamlined hull of the ship itself.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOnl
y problem I can see with this is that you are exposing your secondary craft to
damage by the elements (yes, elements in space) as well as damage from combat.
I mean a lot of this comes down to design philosophy and how you want to
arrange things. Sure, modern surface vessles keep their lifeboat on deck, but
they are also kept safe from the elements and out of harms way. On top of this
ending up in the ocean without a boat may be deadly, but ending up in space
without a boat is death itself.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robyn Stott" <rodstott@austarnet.com.au>
> I can also see the standard compliment of shuttles on board a ship to
> I can also see the standard compliment of shuttles on board a ship to
..... A perfect example of this being the two shuttles on a Firefly
class transport - half-recessed into the hull sides above the wing
roots, deployed in space or when grounded by sliding outwards and
then lifting vertically away. :-)
On more streamlined ships the exposed part of the shuttle could be protected
by a thin aerodynamic cover that would slide open under
normal launch procedures, but have an explosive quick-jettison option
for emergency "lifeboat" use.
Especially on smaller ships, this makes a lot more sense than having a
complete internal hangar and launch bay for the shuttles, but as with
everything in the game it depends on the background feel that you like!
Jon (GZG)
> Robyn Stott
Plus the fact it makes external maintenance on said small craft a lot more
difficult. And if your shuttles also have hardpoints, reloading becomes a real
pain.
JGH
> emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> [quoted text omitted]