General Construction time - why so long?

[whartung]

OK, seriously, I haven't a clue; if the game system says a ship has comms, sensors, and such like, fine and dandy; if it then says a percentage of that avionics and comms fit contains fandanglezobby ten thousand communications ropes, again, fine and dandy. Fine, there are meson communications, EM receivers, radar, Ladar, Maser, and a bucket load of other bits, again, fine and dandy. But do we REALLY need to know how much of that has what space individually?

Well, demonstrably somebody wanted to know that kind of thing, as Traveller was not the only system to get more detailed as time went on.

And don't forget that along with the laments around FF&S, it historically was very well received, not just the Traveller community, but in others as well.

In LBB Traveller, all of those electronics were basically called "The Bridge", and bundled in to a 2% blob along with other control systems.

And we've seen a litany of discussion over the "2% or 20 dTons" rule ever since.

By the time TNE came around, that was all gone, replaced with "A Maser is X big, takes Y watts of power, and costs Z Cr". When the hijacker reveals himself and sets off a grenade in the avionics closest destroying the RADAR control subsystem (which seemed untimely as another ship that would have been readily discovered had the RADAR been working sneaks up - isn't THAT a coincidence!), now we know how much equipment needs to be replaced.

There has always been a battle between abstraction and detail.

The design systems are tied to the combat system. What's the point of mounting lasers on a ship if you can't shoot them. And they wanted a more detailed combat system to deal with sensors and fire control.

They wanted more detail to show a laser lancing punching in off the port bow, burning through the armor, and turning the RADAR control unit to slag, since it's an RP element to have it fixed vs "Electronics - 1" hit. That's why there's hit locations.

Not only is it nice to know that the RADAR was fried, it's nice to know that the bridge occupants weren't. Another RP element.

How successful they were is a different discussion.

But there always seems to be a demand for just a little bit more detail in game systems. Whether its ship design, world design, star system design, or even economic trade models.

 

[Condottiere]

An example from somewhere more familiar, regarding interpretation of RAW:


Debunking Dispel Magic | Nerd Immersion

So after making my video on Counterspell, it came to my attention that there may be a little confusion about Dispel Magic as well. So I figured I'd clear it up.:*IT ONLY WORKS ON SPELLS* And further more, it only works on spells that have lingering effecting aka spells without an Instantaneous duration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9uCL5WtbHA


Basically, since this is a science fiction roleplaying game, players would like to know exactly how utilizing specific pieces of technology effects gameplay.

Though from experience, I'd say there's some more latitude for Dungeons and Dragons interpretations, than for Warhammer.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like there was some seepage from Magic The Gathering.

 

[Redcap]

Yeah, I follow the thinking (wow, this is getting way way waaaaay the heck off topic, but wth and who cares? :rofl: ).

I'm actually in two minds over this issue; in some ways, it's helpful in-game, as it give the ref a solid feel without having to think about it, as to what the PCs can do with their ship (or whatever).

OTOH, it's a royal pain to always bee looking at charts, or making rolls versus whatever skill (opposed or otherwise), or consulting NPC sheets to see if the PC succeeds or not, and so on.

Two sides, and all that.

 

[aramis]

I imagine that the time includes: Getting all the parts in one place for assembly, waiting for a construction slip to open (what, you think they drop EVERYTHING to make your ship? Get in line!), the time it takes to be built, followed by inspections on EVERYTHING, fixing what needs fixing before being inspected again, and again and again.

No major shipyard of the last 2 centuries has waited for everything to be present... you have things brought while constructing so that you minimize storage issues. One of the most frequent delays used to be wood not arriving on schedule, then it became steel, now it's subassemblies not shipping on time.

Even when the yard at Seward was building ships, the photos show partial hull in the drydock as steel was being hauled off a freighter. And back in the wood hull days, carts of lumber and a partially built hull. (Seward, Alaska, has been a yard since 1780... it stpped building new after WW II.)

 

[BackworldTraveller]

The RAF stopped Kreigsmarine Type XXI sub production less by bombing the yards than by bombing the canals that moved the sub-assemblies to the yards...lots of hulls, none with that vital part. And then the yard is full of part finished hulls so you can't even work on those and then it all goes phutt.

 

[Condottiere]

That's why I've always maintained that you build capital ships before a conflict.

 

[Redcap]

From your lips, to the Emperor's (or whoever's) ears

 

[Straybow]

I'd point out that a real life water displacement ton and a traveller LHyd Displacement ton are two different units with significantly different sizes. a traveller D-ton is 14m³, whereas a ton of seawater is slightly less 1m³ (1025Kg/m³).

But a ton of ship isn't a ton of seawater, except a heavily ballasted submarine. A surface ship is closer to 3m³ per ton.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

But a ton of ship isn't a ton of seawater, except a heavily ballasted submarine. A surface ship is closer to 3m³ per ton.

fair enough, but my point still stands that a traveller Dton =/= real life displacement ton.

 

[Selandia]

a wwii quadrimotor (round) 18,000 technical drawings.

I do not know the current figure for an major airliner, but I know that a LBB 20 min design is more game friendly than a life long study of the Scout's plan so that I can rework the wiring and outsmart the design team

That is the reason why the ship design system is an allegoric system. An allegory being a story where every component is a metaphore, it allows a scientifically absurd design that does not differentiate between weight (Dton) and volume (tonnage ton), where an empty freighter handle like a loaded one, where "bridge" is an evocation of power, command and control, through an aggregate of magic items (items whose science is more or less understood by the user) black boxed in consoles and cabinets. That is poetry not science and our ships designs are poems intended to seduce the players by their evocation of what they want to: be, have, doing and positive game impact. The maths (volume and cost) do not make it a science, they are just making the rhymes and sonnet structure works.

As often said, it is all about playability and compromise that make players enjoy the game.

have fun, unless you get paid to design games, that is the whole bloody point

Selandia

 

[aramis]

But a ton of ship isn't a ton of seawater, except a heavily ballasted submarine. A surface ship is closer to 3m³ per ton.

In the real world units, taken from Rowlett's dictionary of units:
A naval register ton is exactly 100 ft³ (≅2.8316m³) of cargo volume.
A naval displacement ton is 35 ft³ (≅0.9911m³) of submerged hull — with two measures - one unladen, one laden; and laden assuming 1 long-ton per RT, full fuel tanks at between 35 ft³ (Bunker C) and 42 ft³ (USN high grade diesel) per long-ton, and full crew at a specified weight. It also is a direct measure of actual mass.

Note that some ships exceed 5m³ per Td... mostly carriers... and subs have to be able to cross below that magic 35ft³(≅0.9911m³)/Long-ton.


New home of Rowlett's Dictionary of Units:
http://www.ibiblio.org/units/