A last pre-xmas topic.
There are generations of ship design. One suggestion for how to represent the
progress of tech was non optimal use of space (ie waste space). Though I think
this is a good idea, of itself I don't believe
it is sufficient - that represents strictly the inefficiency of
systems rather than their more primitive capability.
Here's my suggestion:
A five category system
- archaic
- 3rd line
- 2nd line
- current 1st line
- state of the art (or experimental)
Current 1st line is the *default* which the FT and FB rules outline.
Space usage efficiency as a f'n of tech quality: Archaic = 70% 3rd line = 80%
2nd line = 90% 1st line current = 100% state of the art = 110%
When designing a ship, decide which generation it is. Size the hull as
normal, then size each component by a multiplier of 100/percentage
from the above table. Which is to say that an archaic ship would size
all components on a multiplier of 100/70 = 1.43. A state of the art
ship would size each component by a size of 0.91.
This represents the "size efficiencies of technology".
One also has to represent the quality. This is reflected in a number of areas:
Sensors: mutliply effective sensor radii by the multiplier in the above table
(archaic = 70% of current standards).
Weapons Fire: Poorer FC systems and FC sensor will translate to poorer
effective ranges. Reduce range bands by 1" per 12" for every level below
normal, or increase similarly for above average. This is represented in the
table below:
tech quality: 12" band becomes: 6" band becomes: archaic 9" 4.5" 3rd line 10"
5" 2nd line 11" 5.5" 1st line (current) 12" 6" state of the art 13" 6.5"
Manouvre: Manouvre capability is affected by ship quality
tech quality% of thrust available for manouvre
with thrust 2/4/6, this means
archaic 20%
1/1/1
3rd line 30%
1/1/2
2nd line 40%
1/2/2
1st line 50%
1/2/2
state of the art 60%
1/2/4
Defensive systems effectiveness: <still thinking about this? Probably a
modified PDS table>
SM radius: archaic 3" 3rd line 4" 2nd line 5" 1st line 6" state of the art 7"
Certain items ought to be available only at certain tech levels too. Though
which and what I haven't thought much abour. Principally
advanced fighter types, advanced missile types, perhaps level-2
screens, perhaps ADFC.
ECM: <haven't thought enough about it yet.>
Points: Not sure yet.
Something like this puts a 2nd line ship at a disadvantage, but not an
insufferable one. An archaic ship from the 2090s would be at a big
disadvantage. It also gives a minor boost to state of the art ships...
That's it for the first cut at this before Xmas. Feel free to criticise (like
I could stop you) but remember it is Xmas...;)
> Here's my suggestion:
[snipped rest of rules]
While this makes an adequate measure of quality, I belive that, as presented,
it is far too complex for most to use.
I'd limit it to three levels of quality, and have those levels affect a more
limited range of attributes.
The finished system should be such that constant reference is not required.
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com>
> >A five category system
Agreed. I've been thinking about this as well, and there's a way to do this
with zero rules additions or changes. change the size of a MU Arcahic ships
use, say centimeters as MU, 2nd line might use 2 cm for 1
MU. 1st line could use inches, State of the art/experimental could use
3cm.
COnstruction costs, weapon ranges and thrust would be unchanged. Only the
yardstick changes. (I use cm mutiples only because that't the easiest. You
could easily make us a small tape measure where the units are 15/16
inches)
An advantage of this system is that its relative.. If all your ships are of a
like tech level, then you use your default MU size.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Here's my suggestion:
*EACH* component, including hull and engines?
This leads to an awful lot of Mass fractions (...HPLC, anyone? <g>). When do
you round things off?
> This represents the "size efficiencies of technology".
[snip]
> Weapons Fire:
ranges.
<chuckle> This uses the very same logic as I and Noam used in the "stealth"
hull debate some time ago. IIRC, Thomas was one of our main opponents in that
discussion; it is nice to see that you've turned around to the Light <G>
> Reduce range bands by 1" per 12" for every level below normal, or
> tech quality: 12" band becomes: 6" band becomes:
6"
> state of the art 13"
6.5"
[snip]
> Points: Not sure yet.
Think long and hard, and when you've reached a conclusion double the
points cost differences you arrived at :-/
> Something like this puts a 2nd line ship at a disadvantage, but not
Assuming all components, including the hull and the engines, of a 2nd line
ship uses up 111% of the normal Mass *and* it uses 11mu range
bands, a 2nd line ship has roughly 75-80% of the combat power of a 1st
line ship of the same Mass and similar design. This is roughly equal to
the difference between an ESU Voroshilev-class CH and an NSL
Richthofen-class BC, and I'm not at all convinced that I'd call the
CH's disadvantage a "not insufferable" one in this duel.
If the hull and engines retain their normal Masses while all the other systems
change, the 2nd line ship has closer to 90% of the 1st liner's combat power;
this is less uneven, but still a quite significant difference.
> An archaic ship from the 2090s would be at a big disadvantage.
It would indeed. If engines and hull are increased in mass, it'd have roughly
half the combat power of a 1st line ship of the same Mass and similar design;
if engines and hull retain their normal mass it'd have
roughly 65% the combat power of its 1st line rival (eg, a Vandenburg/T
pitted against a Victoria-class BB).
> It also gives a minor boost to state of the art ships...
If the engines and hulls are decreased in Mass they'll have roughly
115% the combat power of 1st-line ships; if engines and hulls retain
their Mass the state-of-the-art ships are roughly 12% better than 1st
line ships.
The NSL Maria von Burgund-class BB has roughly 15% higher RCP than the
NAC Victoria-class BB. In their case however, the Victoria is more
maneuverable whereas the state-of-the-art ships would have the MvB's
combat power advantage over a 1st line ship without suffering from the poor
maneuverability of the MvB. While this boost is minor compared to the
differences between the other categories of your proposal, it isn't that minor
in the game.
The effect of each of your modifications isn't very big, but they are
cumulative. The total impact of a one-category difference is very
significant indeed, and it is pure hell to try and set reasonably correct
points costs for. That's the main reason why I limited myself to "wasting"
Mass (the other reason being that my version can be used
in any ship-design spreadsheet which accounts for cargo spaces, without
modifying the spreadsheet :-) )
Regards,
I like the difference in measurements for different generations of ships as
suggested by Naom. It's simple, it's affective, and it would work in an
extended campaign game.
> Space usage efficiency as a f'n of tech quality:
Instead of trying to calculate this system by system, if the whole ship is if
another generation tech, multiply the actual mass by the percentage to get an
'Effective Mass' of the ship and design as normal from there.
For example, a 3rd line ship has an actual mass of 95 (the actual mass is what
determines the class, not the 'Effective Mass). Multiply the actual mass by
80% and we get 76, this would be our 'Effective Mass' and the ship would be
designed as if it had a mass of 76 instead of its actual mass of
95. Points should work out since each system now would take up more
space than current tech but it would just as effective points wise. Also 10%
per generation may be a bit much. 5% may work out better.
On the topic of changing range bands etc. This could be done, but I think that
the fire control electrics and similar systems would be easier to update on
ships and refits of this type should be common during a ships lifetime, though
they would no be able to use the extra space since new FCs take up less (it
could be said that the updated electronics need the extra
space since it is a retro-fit but now you don't have to vary range
bands).
> Dean Gundberg wrote:
> Instead of trying to calculate this system by system, if the whole
> Instead of trying to calculate this system by system, if the whole
and perhaps instead of 10% steps, 5% might let your third rate ships
have a chance of surviving an encounter with a first rate--if that's
the way you want it to work.