Previous Message: Re: Blimps in space - a question
Next Message: Ecology of the Xixchil part one
Month Index: June, 2004
From: Dave Schuman <dave@???????.??.org> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:20:24 -0700 Subject: Re: Blimps in space - a question
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:07:54 -0500, Night_Druid <Night_Druid@??????????.net> wrote: >> Well Adam, If it's your game simply decide as you see fit. Just stick to >> your decision long term. >> >> But remember if you allow items such as a blimp, some bright eyes will use >> it as a frame and pour/paint thin layers of concrete over it, instant >> spelljammer hull. But to specifically address the printed spelljammer >> rules, tonnage is defined as volume (50 or 100 cubic yards per ton >> (depending on the source, there are conflicts)) So, it would be >tonnage.... I was calculating the tonnage using th air volume from some rigid airships ranging from 1.5 million ft^3 fo 5 Million ft^3 , and they come out to about 500-3000 tons. so a rigid airship would be out of the question for a ship. (it would, however make a neat "floating dock") Plus as was pointed out, that would place the gravity plane right through the center so the gondola would be Reverse gravity. >> But, a spelljammer brings a air envelop around it as well. I'd say if the >> helm was placed as to allow the air envelop to encompass the blimp, then >I'd >> say it's rigging. In my game, anything that sticks out of the >spelljamming >> field is dead weight and greatly hinders a ship at tactical speeds and >> disallows hi speed travel. > > Heh, I'd be too busy laughing at the player that'd make such a >suggestion. I'd only allow the blimp to work because as the original poster >pointed out, it can be folded in like rigging, so thus would count as really >fancy rigging in my book. A Blimp seems the only plausable spelljammer, This gets around the size problem, and the reverse gravity problem. the lower deck that does reverse could be used for cargo, with a large door in the floor that becomes ceiling in space for a cargo door or landing area for smaller craft. The top of the craft would be an open deck to the inside of the airbags > > Really, the only benefit I could see to a blimp would be lots of air; I >think I'd rule it a MC G and a max SR of 2. And of course, the blimp itself >would be a nice fat target (AC 10, possible even worse), and with only a >couple of hits, it collapses in on itself. Basically, you get some air >benefits, but a whole mess of problems to work around. :) The benifit I was looking for was an easily landable craft. An airship can Hover in an atmosphere and work with no one at the Helm in an atmosphere. The problem is getting the LTA Gas to fill it, and store the likely flamable gas. along with the fact that while it was operating as a blimp, you could not fire weapons from the top deck and the craft would be a Sitting duck. When Spaceborne, the balloon would likely be deflated and/or stored, leaving only the rigging nessicary to maneuver.
Previous Message: Re: Blimps in space - a question
Next Message: Ecology of the Xixchil part one
Month Index: June, 2004
| Subject | From | Date (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blimps in space - a question | Dave Schuman | |||
| Re: Blimps in space - a question | Night_Druid | |||
| Re: Blimps in space - a question | Clint Whelly | |||
| Re: Blimps in space - a question | Night_Druid | |||
| Re: Blimps in space - a question | Static | |||
| Re: Blimps in space - a question | Dave Schuman |