Based upon the construction times for real life "ships", it might be better to
assume that time to construct ships takes months according to this new
formula:
Baseline construction time = sqrt(mass)*2.
Thus, mass 14 ships now take 7.4 months, 32 mass ships now take 11 months and
so on. I am going to point out a couple of thoughts, and then you can all have
fun telling me why the construction times should be shortened rather than
lengthened as I have just done <grin>.
1) construction times were altered based upon actual construction times
required for world war II ships (after using baseline of 1 mass = 250 cubic
yards).
2) I used the US construction rates based on the fact that industry will
probably be highly mechanized and automated - and qualify for heavily
industrialized. The gent who pointed this out on the list should be thanked
for that observation...
3) World war II ships were not sealed hulls, nor were they highly specialized
platforms as compared with today's ships. In short, I figure to maintain the
"ratio" of construction time in that modern day craft will be more complex,
and built to more exacting standards.
Using the new formula, will now get the ships built more or less to World War
II standards, thus the Iowa type ship (mass 239), would take 30.919 months to
make, which is only two months off from the listed historical time.
Personally, this "effort" to standardize construction rates, unless coupled
with some "economic" model, isn't going to be worth much. Also, if we are
using historical models, a mass 48 ship should not be considered a
"battleship". However, rather than try to "redesign" the game, if possible, I
would like to try and keep to the flavor of it, and still interject some
"rational" limitations on build rates ect... As for the concept of "random"
construction times, I can live with it. But the question I place before you
now is this:
Assuming that we go along with World War Construction rates for comparable
sized/volume ships, then we should also explore the concept that navies
will be similarly large. In a crash course for survival of your "race" after a
disasterous battle, you discover that you have to roll for each
and every of the 200 hulls you are building - weeelllll, that might make
you lose enthusiasm for the dice rolling rather quick. Also in answer to the
gent who states that he prefers faster construction rates to help
offset those really disasterous battles - well, history has a few
examples
of what happens when such events occur - it's called surrender. Sue for
peace, and then resume hostilities once you are rebuilt. In short, what I
would like to see for campaign battle type rules, are those that mimic what
history says happens generally, and then people can "modify" such
rules to their circulatory organ's delight... <grin - been aching to use
that phrase now for some time>. Now, if I can only get a handle on what kind
of rules I should be looking to build when it comes to "income" and
construction capacity. Before 1800, you could not have built any Iowa class
battleships, and yet there was a sizable population on earth at that moment.
Come 1900, science coupled with industrialization, allowed for such beasties
to be built. Maybe I should consider the idea that there are three "tech
levels involved here. Current - with everything in it. Early, with most
everything in it, but some things slightly different - ie heavy beams
take 3 mass. During current times, it is an A battery. During early times, it
was a "B" battery... And then finally, the "Pre" tech, where current
tech wasn't even on the drawing boards. One thing I am attempting to keep
within limits is the idea that shipbuilding is not some enterprise that can be
started up today, run at full steam for 2 years, and then left mostly idle for
the next 10 years before "wartime" gears it back up to full production. Once
the market is saturated with merchant hulls, the ship building industry will
"die out" unless maintained in some manner. This is currently happening today
in the US, where defense spending cuts have lowered the workforce in
specialized fabrication industries to the point that they almost no longer
exist!
FT analogy to modern day ship:
Converting the USS NIMITZ to FT stats, it would have to have a 422 mass hull,
and have 15 fighter bays! It should have some 13 weapon mounts, and hold a
crew of 5,698 people. It should have heavy duty sensors on it, and maybe even
some "screens"... To make matters worse, this beastie should have quite a bit
of "cargo space" in order to maintain extended operations for it's fighters as
well as escort ships. Now THAT, would be a carrier in FT's terms! On the other
hand, a ship with 211 hit points would not be one that I would like to try and
wear down, thank you very much. If it took 70 points of damage just to reach a
level one threshold check...
Oh well, musings complete for now, since it is now (locally speaking), 04:15,
and time for me to go home from work...
> On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Hal Carmer wrote:
> Based upon the construction times for real life "ships", it might be
OK (grin), it all depends. The biggest question is how long is this campaign
going to last. If you expect it to go on for years (real time) and span
decades (game time) then fine. If you are looking at a campaign that may only
last for four months (real time) and a correspondingly shorter amount of game
time then maybe not. Also, how often do you play?
If only one game-strategic turn (call it one game month for now) is
played each week you might want to adjust your ship construction rules to fit
that reality.
As an example take the current campaign I am involved with. I expect it
to last about 3-4 months of real time (about one quarter plus starting
over x-mas break). We will probably get together each weekend to
resolve each turn. Now, until the players make contact several strategic turns
can be handled per week. But when the races make contact and combat
starts the rate of turn-around will drop off (and has already, somewhat)
drastically. The game mechanics that I put together (construction rate and
economics) are influenced by that far more than by any "reality" model.
Now, actually I think the numbers you are using are just fine - and they
actually come close to matching what I am using at the capital end of the
scale. But I just think you are going about it from the wrong direction. I
would suggest that you sit down and figure out how you want the campaign
to run/flow and then create the game mechanics that give you that
result. This aspect becomes VERY important (IMHO) when you start to look at
economics.
> As for the concept of "random" construction times, I can live with
Again, decide what you want to see happen and then create the game mechanics
that give you that result. You point out that given the WW construction rates
you should plan for equally large construction (especially if you go for an
economic base tied to WW US level for the planet) and point out below what a
horrible thought it would be to roll
dice for all those ships - and you are very very correct. BUT, did you
consider the consequences of fielding 200 hulls in a battle (and that is just
one side)? It has happened in reality (your base for comparison); and it will
happen in your game if you follow this through (you just got 48 new figs, now
you only need another 3 sets: grin).
> In a crash course for survival of your "race"
Again, how about fielding those 200 hulls: talk about dice rolling!!
> Now, if I can only get a handle on what kind of rules I should be
I must be totally missing the point with high-tech thought, because I
just don't seem to agree with anything I have seen on the list yet. My thought
is that low tech systems should still be balanced (by points) against high
tech systems. What fun is it if a "high" tech race always wins against a "low"
tech race? Granted that may be realistic, but it doesn't sound like much fun
for the guy stuck playing the low tech race. My belief is that if you increase
the mass for systems on low tech races you should lower the cost of those
systems. So you end up with large low tech fleets armed with only a few
weapons. For high tech races you might lower the mass of systems, but increase
the cost. The idea is that you should have three
2000 point fleets, a large low tech - a medium current tech - a small
high tech, and that each should be balanced. That is one reason why I dislike
the current thought of using only mass to build ships - high tech races
will simply be better all the way around. As a further example a low tech race
might have mass 5 screens costing 10 points each while a high tech race might
have mass 2 screens costing 50 points each. Just a thought.
> Hal
I am following this thread with interest.
While the comparisons with WWII era ships is useful up to a point, I don't
think it stands up to the extent that Hal has described. If you compare our
present space technology with say the naval technology of the 15th or 16th
century then space craft are a _lot_ smaller. The space shuttle only has
a crew of 5, Apollo had only 3. Compared to the ships of Columbus thats pretty
small.
I therefore have no problem in the spaceships in FT being a _lot_
smaller than the equivalent WWII ships.
Automation takes the place of people and doesn't require life support systems,
receation space and so on.
Mike Elliott
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: construction times...
Author: SMTP:owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk/ at INTERNET
Date: 07/12/96 10:29
Based upon the construction times for real life "ships", it might be better to
assume that time to construct ships takes months according to this new
formula:
Baseline construction time = sqrt(mass)*2.
Thus, mass 14 ships now take 7.4 months, 32 mass ships now take 11 months and
so on. I am going to point out a couple of thoughts, and then you can all have
fun telling me why the construction times should be shortened rather than
lengthened as I have just done <grin>.
1) construction times were altered based upon actual construction times
required for world war II ships (after using baseline of 1 mass = 250 cubic
yards).
2) I used the US construction rates based on the fact that industry will
probably be highly mechanized and automated - and qualify for heavily
industrialized. The gent who pointed this out on the list should be thanked
for that observation...
3) World war II ships were not sealed hulls, nor were they highly specialized
platforms as compared with today's ships. In short, I figure to maintain the
"ratio" of construction time in that modern day craft will be more complex,
and built to more exacting standards.
Using the new formula, will now get the ships built more or less to World War
II standards, thus the Iowa type ship (mass 239), would take 30.919 months to
make, which is only two months off from the listed historical time.
Personally, this "effort" to standardize construction rates, unless coupled
with some "economic" model, isn't going to be worth much. Also, if we are
using historical models, a mass 48 ship should not be considered a
"battleship". However, rather than try to "redesign" the game, if possible, I
would like to try and keep to the flavor of it, and
still interject some "rational" limitations on build rates ect... As for the
concept of "random" construction times, I can live with it. But the question I
place before you now is this:
Assuming that we go along with World War Construction rates for comparable
sized/volume ships, then we should also explore the concept that navies
will be similarly large. In a crash course for survival of your "race" after a
disasterous battle, you discover that you have to roll for each
and every of the 200 hulls you are building - weeelllll, that might make
you lose enthusiasm for the dice rolling rather quick. Also in answer to the
gent who states that he prefers faster construction rates to help
offset those really disasterous battles - well, history has a few
examples
of what happens when such events occur - it's called surrender. Sue for
peace, and then resume hostilities once you are rebuilt. In short, what I
would like to see for campaign battle type rules, are those that mimic what
history says happens generally, and then people can "modify" such
rules to their circulatory organ's delight... <grin - been aching to use
that phrase now for some time>. Now, if I can only get a handle on what kind
of rules I should be looking to build when it comes to "income" and
construction capacity. Before 1800, you could not have built any Iowa class
battleships, and yet there was a sizable population on earth at that moment.
Come 1900, science coupled with industrialization, allowed for such beasties
to be built. Maybe I should consider the idea that there are three "tech
levels
involved here. Current - with everything in it. Early, with most
everything in it, but some things slightly different - ie heavy beams
take 3 mass. During current times, it is an A battery. During early times, it
was a "B" battery... And then finally, the "Pre" tech, where current
tech wasn't even on the drawing boards. One thing I am attempting to keep
within limits is the idea that shipbuilding is not some enterprise that can be
started up today, run at
full steam for 2 years, and then left mostly idle for the next 10 years before
"wartime" gears it back up to full production. Once the market is saturated
with merchant hulls, the ship building industry will "die out"
unless maintained in some manner. This is currently happening today in the US,
where defense spending cuts have lowered the workforce in specialized
fabrication industries to the point that they almost no longer exist!
FT analogy to modern day ship:
Converting the USS NIMITZ to FT stats, it would have to have a 422 mass hull,
and have 15 fighter bays! It should have some 13 weapon mounts, and hold a
crew of 5,698 people. It should have heavy duty sensors on it, and maybe even
some "screens"... To make matters worse, this beastie should
have quite a bit of "cargo space" in order to maintain extended operations for
it's fighters as well as escort ships. Now THAT, would be a carrier
in FT's terms! On the other hand, a ship with 211 hit points would not be one
that I would like to try and wear down, thank you very much. If it took 70
points of damage just to reach a level one threshold check...
Oh well, musings complete for now, since it is now (locally speaking), 04:15,
and time for me to go home from work...
Hal
Excerpts from FT: 9-Dec-96 Re: construction times... by
M.J.Elliott@uk22p.bull.c
> While the comparisons with WWII era ships is useful up to a point, I
I dunno... I kinda like Niven & Pournelle's discussion on the background
for _The Mote in God's Eye_... but then, the ships had the Langston
Fields (wouldn't that be a fun one? ^_^ ) so they didn't just blow up.
But then, FT has shields... it's an interesting question.
(The excerpt: The Langston Field is crucial to the Empire, too. The Navy can
survive partial destruction and keep fighting. [The Fields don't collapse all
at once; you can burn through, so they're probably a lot
like FT's shields --Aaron] Ships carry black boxes -- plug-in sets of
spare parts -- and large crews who have little to do unless half of them
get killed. That's much like the navies of fifty years ago. A merchant ship
might have a crew of forty. A warship of similar size carries a crew ten times
as large. Most have little to do for most of the life of the ship. It's only
in battles that the large number of
self-programming computers become important. *Then* the outcome of the
battle may depend on having the largest and best-trained crew -- and
there aren't many prizes for second place in battle.
-- from _N-Space_, p.466 )
Also, if you play with boarding parties, you're going to want some sort of
available force on board to capture and then crew enemy ships; and as long as
they're there, you might as well use them, as Damage Control if nothing else.
(See, for example, the paratroopers on the Julius Fusik
(sp?) in Tom Clancy's _Red Storm Rising_ -- they were trained to put out
shipboard fires.)
Other examples probably abound; I've been trying to dredge up my
memories of _Voyage of the Star Wolf_, but come up a bit blank --time to
read it again, I guess. ^_^ (I do recall that they were turning out
Liberty Ships at something like one every eleven days or so, from 7 or 9
factories... crew was roughly 100 or so. I'm sure someone else can fix
those numbers. ^_^ )
All in all, I'd say large military crews are not at all unlikely.
> Mike Elliott wrote:
I always thought of it as the opposite. In space the distances are greater
and would require larger, more efficient and self-sustaining systems
than today. I agree that crew size might be smaller, but systems would
probably require more space like fuel tankage, engines, sensors, redundant
systems, etc.
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:38:46 -0500 (EST)
...
> I always thought of it as the opposite. In space the distances are
Kindof why I like the scale of the ships in Alien and Aliens.
5-10 people on something the size of a WW2/Modern light cruiser.
> Mike Elliott wrote:
> >pretty small.
Columbus didn't need to carry around 99% reaction mass to get to his
destination and back. Given reactionless drives and lots and lots of energy
(like in Full Thrust...), there's no reason to keep things small.
In the zero-g, frictionless environment of space, there's not much
technical disadvantage to a big ship.
> John Medway wrote:
Yep. They did an awesome job of giving us a view of what future space flight
might be like. One of the greatest aspects of those films was the realistic
approach to future technology. Can't wait to until the laser disk for Aliens
goes on sale. Anyone know where you could get a good deal on the LD for Alien
and Aliens?
> On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Mike Miserendino wrote:
> Yep. They did an awesome job of giving us a view of what future space
Aliens, the director's cut has been available on LD for several years now. I
highly recommend the Director's cut since it includes footage that neer made
it to the big screen including the entire auto gun sections. (It's incredible
seeing dozens of aliens getting splattered) Unfortunately a price I saw for it
was $99.95 at Blockbuster.
--Binhan
> Sometime in the past, you wrote:
}
}Yep. They did an awesome job of giving us a view of what future space}flight
might be like. One of the greatest aspects of those films was the}realistic
approach to future technology. Can't wait to until the laser disk}for Aliens
goes on sale. Anyone know where you could get a good deal on the}LD for Alien
and Aliens?
I own the Special Wide Screen Collector's Edition Aliens LD set. Restores
several scenes, and in CAV format. 154 minutes long. Highly recommended.
They've recently re-released a new version on LD, but I don't know if it
has any restored footage, tho.
> Myk wrote:
Restores
> several scenes, and in CAV format. 154 minutes long. Highly
> Binhan Lin wrote:
Yep. A friend of mine has it. After watching it I knew I had to get it, but
the only prices seem to be about $99 everywhere I've found it. I remember the
extra 20 minutes well. The auto gun stuff, the long shots of the Sulaco and
its hangar, an entirely different opening segment featuring the colonists,
extra dialogue that explained a few things, full movie
scripts, stills, and more. I need this LD - the main reason I bought an
LD player!:)
> Mike Miserendino wrote:
> Yep. They did an awesome job of giving us a view of what future space
> disk for Aliens goes on sale. Anyone know where you could get a good
One of my favorite discs :-). To get a deal, I suggest going through
Columbia House LaserDisc club, I don't think you can get the Alien and Aliens
Special Editions as a sign up purchase but after you have bought
your required discs, buy a disc, get a bonus point and use the bonus to
get a bunch off. Opps, I just looked at a catalog and they did not have
the Special Editions :-(, only the new THX versions ( $50 and $60 reg,
$32 and $36 as a bonus). Otherwise, look for a Media Play store that is
closing, one nearby me is closing and is getting discs from other stores for
their closeout sale and they will all be 15% off. Finally try one of the major
LD mailorder houses, Ken Crane's, etc.
Good Luck,