| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: |
Maybe the gravity well generators also have their own dedicated power sources, in which case: quandary solved! |
Yes, gravity generators would need some power source, so the ship would need bigger or more generators. And while gravity generators are purely fictional, the laws of thermodynamics would indicate that the power they would require to cancel out the force of a large object would be greater than the actual force. |
Correct.
My point is - there ain't no big bulge in the middle of the underside of the Vindicator/Immobilizer hull, the way you have on the ISD. On the ISD that bulge is there because the reactor is too big to fully fit within the hull.
However, if the gravity well generators have their own reactors within the four bulbs that house them, then that explains why they don't have the big bulge in the center, and why the Vindicator doesn't have it at all. It doesn't need it, because it's a smaller ship.
| atgxtg wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | I think you're talking about volume more than we are about mass, in which case your point is very well taken. |
Both. While you need volume for the systems, you also need machinery to make them work, and that takes up mass and requires power, so it means a bigger generator. For instance, just to get hot water on the top of a high rise requires adding a pump to get the water to the top, and then a way to heat the water. If you throw in, say, a 30 gallon hot water heater, you just added at least 240 pounds for just the water. That's not counting the weight of the tank itself or all the plumbing to get the water into and out of the tank. |
I'm not sure why you're belaboring the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At this point, this discussion is probably more appropriate for the Star Destroyer topic.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | At this point, this discussion is probably more appropriate for the Star Destroyer topic. |
I'm not sure why. I was just wondering why the Immobilizer didn't have a central bulge in the underside, while it manifestly needs a huge source of power.
You started talking about your concept for the Disrupter-Class Information Warfare Cruiser based on a Vindicator hull. So, if we need to shift thread, I'd say create one for your proposed Disrupter-Class, or propose it in the Interstellar Communications thread.
I'd argue for the latter based on my notion that we need still to establish the degree to which cruiser-sized communications vessels are a necessary or structurally implied part of the navy. Also, I'm more for 'filling in' than for expanding, but that's just me. I know that you're a big fan of creating new ships, so it's up to you how you want to pursue the idea further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | I was just wondering why the Immobilizer didn't have a central bulge in the underside, while it manifestly needs a huge source of power. |
<shrug> Because its internal layout doesn't require having a reactor bulge; the reactor is small enough to be fully internal. The Vindictator is only 600 meters long to the ISD's 1600.
| Quote: | You started talking about your concept for the Disrupter-Class Information Warfare Cruiser based on a Vindicator hull. So, if we need to shift thread, I'd say create one for your proposed Disrupter-Class, or propose it in the Interstellar Communications thread.
I'd argue for the latter based on my notion that we need still to establish the degree to which cruiser-sized communications vessels are a necessary or structurally implied part of the navy. Also, I'm more for 'filling in' than for expanding, but that's just me. I know that you're a big fan of creating new ships, so it's up to you how you want to pursue the idea further. |
Actually, the majority of my ships of late have been attempts to fill in the gaps (i.e. create RPG stats for ships that already exist in the EU, either in other media or mentioned in name only in the WEG material).
A big part of the design process for the Disrupter-Class has yet to be decided in the other topic, on top of which there is also the question of how much of what the ship can do will require stats as opposed to merely being part of the description. Is it enough to simply say that a ship can jam hypercomm transmissions, or does it require stats to actually show how it does it?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
