Previous Message: Corsair - d20 Supplement
Next Message: Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated
Month Index: April, 2007
From: Charles Taylor <nerik@?????????.?????.??.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:37:50 +0100 Subject: Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated
As a follow up, what are people's viewss on how for 'fix' the ship size discrepancies? 1) Ignore the problem (say "a wizard did it") 2) Re-scale ships to match existing tonnages (this invalidates many of the existing deck plans) 3) Re-define the ton: 3a) To 50 cubic yards (half current) 3b) To 1000 cubic feet (or a 10' x 10' x 10' cube) (like Hackjammer) 3c) To the 'real world' value of 100 cubic feet (which throws values right off!) None of these options will fix _every_ ship however 4) Switch from basing tons on volume, to basing them on mass or weight (like Champions of Mystara) - this makes a lot of sense, but would require a whole new way of estimating tonnage. 5) Something I didn't think of. -- Charles When you said he was acting odd, you did not specify "Miniature Spacetime Singularity" odd!
Previous Message: Corsair - d20 Supplement
Next Message: Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated
Month Index: April, 2007
| Subject | From | Date (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated | Charles Taylor | |||
| Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated | Charles Taylor | |||
| Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated | Paul Westermeyer |