walrusguyHere's a few things I promised to get back to you about the
Tavares pages on Bryans' site. Sorry it took so long to get back to posting this, been in a bit of a hobby funk this last month. It's also a bit longer than I thought!
Note, as I calculated the models manually, and the ones on the site might be done by Bryan via spreadsheets, I understand that there might be rounding errors on my part compared to the spreadsheets. Plus I use the banked superstructure for weapon pairs, but not the banked weapon rules, so there
might be differences in tonnage.
I can't get those sheets to work on my old iBook or Fire tablet. See this thread, where
ufc465537 and
bazbaziah tried to help me get them to work, to no avail unfortunately. But thanks again anyway, guys!
ststcsolda.proboards.com/thread/1439/using-woods-chartless-construction-ufc465537Also, if I've noted a WDF discrepency, I've compared my physical copy of the Construction Manual to the PDF of the expanded tables from Bryans' site to confirm the stats are the same.
Anyway, onto the variants on the site...
1. The standard model. I don't deserve that story credit. I just transcribed that first paragraph for the standard model from the FASA supplement ( "The Triangle Campaign", p18).
I know that Bryan has added more figures built for the civilian models, as well as recalcuating the new CE figures, based on the new loaded and unloaded MPR figures, based on expanded construction tables and spreadsheets, so I understand those alterations.
2. The "Billion Credit Princess". I notice the D figure of 36.8 is the same as the standard model, but she has 1/1 MPR with those Orion engines as I designed her. So that, her more efficient shields, plus the extra 2 superstructure, should give a D figure of about 77.6. Not sure what that makes her loaded D figure. Her unloaded cruising warp speed at 1/1 should be Warp 7, and with the expanded construction tables, her loaded cruising/emergency speeds should be Warp 6/8?
Her WDF is low by 0.2. Plus, could an addition be made to the part of the sentence where it reads "considering the armament fitted to much an innocuous hull", inserting "(especially the dorsal turret)" after the word "armament"? I'd mentioned the turret in my 'Jaynz magazine article' here on the forum, and I know some players here have asked me before about a couple of my designs with multiple arc/360° weapon arcs, which I tended to limit due to the physical hull design. See this post in my House Rules thread...
ststcsolda.proboards.com/post/6217/threadEDIT 12/06: her transporters are listed a standard 5-person instead of 6-person.
3. The "K't'chep" (Bringer of Profit).Only difference I can see is the total WDF is low by 0.1.
4. The "Ecosse Express".The WDF figure of 2.0 is for the FAC-3, whereas, I used the FAC-1, which has a WDF of 0.6.
5. The "Pride of Kumari".Her superstructure should be 4, and her WDF should be 9.5, giving her an unloaded D factor of 38.1. Her tonnage should be 13,410mt, it looks like the 3 and 4 might have been transposed?
6. The "Cobra III".EDIT 27/05: The title at the top reads TAVARAS instead of TAVARES.
EDIT 12/06: her cargo transporters are listed twice.
Her D figure should be 40.6, and her WDF total 2.2.
I note that the FL-1 weapons aren't listed in the stats block. Plus, the game note should read that it is the FL-1 lasers that can be modulated for mining use. This is based on how I equipped a certain type of ship in a certain trading computer game, main weapon forward, mining laser to port and starboard!
7. The "Traben".I see that Bryan has used the Tellarite TLH-1 weapons from the expanded Construction tables, and that would give slightly different tonnage figures, no problem there.
But shouldn't it have been the TLL-1 for legality purposes, as the TLH types are phasers, not lasers? Whatever he decides, the total WDF would be 1.8 from the expanded tables (both weapon types have an individual WDF of 0.9).
==================================================================
Sorry again, the list was a little longer than I thought it was going to be. I fully appreciate my variant versions going up on the site, and totally understand how much work and effort Bryan puts into the running, maintaining and updating of that site. I couldn't do that if I tried!
And if you haven't been told it recently, Bryan, thank you for all that hard work.
Mark
