Tangri?

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Tangri?

Postby Cralis on Sat 15 Sep 2012 09:23

Well that is true, the Tangri information in First Contact is probably still good. I was more commenting that everything else (Vestrii, Kess, J'RIll, Hre'Daak, etc.) is not part of Weber's history.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Tangri?

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Sat 15 Sep 2012 20:01

I would agree with that since the Encyclopedia Galactica Tangri entry from First Contact is essentially the original from Nexus 11.

BTW I think I've figured out part of the HBM issues noted in the Insurrection supplement. When the book was written the current game system was 2nd ed (possibly an early playtest version of 3rd ed). As such the advanced shields and armor from the supplement did not exist within the rules. Using the 36 damage warheads it's easy to see how TRNS Unicorn was destroyed in 3 hits. If you cut the combined S/A to about 30 hits (reasonable given the control sheets of the SD's from SaW) the 2nd hit would have hit the forward hanger bay which would have collapsed. The 3rd hit would have started somewhere near the rear bay with the same results. No real need to hit a loaded fighter with those assumptions.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Tangri?

Postby Crucis on Sat 15 Sep 2012 20:26

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I would agree with that since the Encyclopedia Galactica Tangri entry from First Contact is essentially the original from Nexus 11.

BTW I think I've figured out part of the HBM issues noted in the Insurrection supplement. When the book was written the current game system was 2nd ed (possibly an early playtest version of 3rd ed). As such the advanced shields and armor from the supplement did not exist within the rules. Using the 36 damage warheads it's easy to see how TRNS Unicorn was destroyed in 3 hits. If you cut the combined S/A to about 30 hits (reasonable given the control sheets of the SD's from SaW) the 2nd hit would have hit the forward hanger bay which would have collapsed. The 3rd hit would have started somewhere near the rear bay with the same results. No real need to hit a loaded fighter with those assumptions.



Alexei, Insurrection was originally written in about the mid-80's, though I don't remember exactly when. It may have been before or a bit after the 2e tactical rules were released in 1984.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Tangri?

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Sat 15 Sep 2012 20:32

Crucis wrote:Alexei, Insurrection was originally written in about the mid-80's, though I don't remember exactly when. It may have been before or a bit after the 2e tactical rules were released in 1984.


I knew that it was a work in progress in the 80's. I just wasn't sure how late in the 80's and wether David had started on the 3rd ed rules set. If it was written using 2nd ed as the source material, it makes sense that Unicorn would have been destroyed so easily.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Tangri?

Postby Crucis on Thu 24 Jan 2013 13:37

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I would agree with that since the Encyclopedia Galactica Tangri entry from First Contact is essentially the original from Nexus 11.

BTW I think I've figured out part of the HBM issues noted in the Insurrection supplement. When the book was written the current game system was 2nd ed (possibly an early playtest version of 3rd ed). As such the advanced shields and armor from the supplement did not exist within the rules. Using the 36 damage warheads it's easy to see how TRNS Unicorn was destroyed in 3 hits. If you cut the combined S/A to about 30 hits (reasonable given the control sheets of the SD's from SaW) the 2nd hit would have hit the forward hanger bay which would have collapsed. The 3rd hit would have started somewhere near the rear bay with the same results. No real need to hit a loaded fighter with those assumptions.



BTW, Alexei, it's also worth mentioning that HBM's as Dave Weber envisioned them were considerably more powerful than the version that made it into the Insurrection scenario module. Also, Advanced Anti-Matter warheads did 5x nuke damage rather than 3x. When it all gets added together, the HBM's that destroyed the TRNS Unicorn in the novel were a LOT more powerful than the officially released version.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Tangri?

Postby Dawn Falcon on Thu 24 Jan 2013 13:39

Indeed, there are less..balance concerns when you're writing a story than playing a game.
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Tangri?

Postby Crucis on Thu 24 Jan 2013 16:13

Dawn Falcon wrote:Indeed, there are less..balance concerns when you're writing a story than playing a game.


It's not so much that in this case. The tech systems all existed in draft versions that DW and his own play group used. (IIRC, I have them floating around somewhere in my boxes of old Starfire stuff.) Dave just had a different view of game balance than Marvin, etc. when SDS wrote the Insurrection scenario module and created the official version of the HBM (which, quite frankly, I have some serious issues with).

((I don't like the official version's limitation on the # of Rh's per hull because the justification is pure bullpuckey, i.e. that people would just pack their ships full of Rh's. And if the Rim didn't do this, then there must have been a technical reason. Pure BS. The Rim followed standard TFN design theory which called for balanced missile vs beam designs when they built their Rh-armed SMT's. There was no technical reason for the Rim not building pure Rh-armed SMT's in Insurrection. Just design theory.))


Still, I do agree with you on the general point.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Tangri?

Postby Dawn Falcon on Fri 25 Jan 2013 09:58

I don't necessarily agree with Dave on balance issues. Long story, silly story.

Did I mention Dave once managed to give his Honourverse ships the consistency of smoke? Heh.
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Tangri?

Postby reddavid on Fri 25 Jan 2013 11:31

Did I mention Dave once managed to give his Honourverse ships the consistency of smoke? Heh.


A nebulous propositon for sure.
Let me cry and I will take on the world
reddavid
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu 02 Feb 2012 23:49
Location: Orion–Cygnus Arm

Re: Tangri?

Postby tmul4050 on Sat 26 Jan 2013 00:26

more smoke and mirrors (watch out the bad joke patrol is near!!) :D
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests