FFS3 for T5

[Jamus]

Im confused when it comes to all of this gearhead stuff.
bk2 tells me how to make a starship and every kind of vehicle or weapon i would ever need is in bk1 or bk3 or one of the supplements.

why would i need to waste a page of paper and use a four function calculator to design a revolver ort a ground car when rules for a revolver and ground car already exist along with almost every other piece of hardware a traveller is likely to run into. can someone explain to me what pleasure is derived from doing math?

Just seems like the more complexity and rules dependant a game the less likelyhood of roleplaying and fun. in my opinion.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Jamus: what kind of revolver?.. a .44 colt dragoon?...or a .357 magnum?...or a .22 plinker....
what kind of ground car?.. a yugo? or a limo? or a formula 1 race car?

of course for various reasons, even FFS1 can't do different ground cars/vehicles too well.
a 2000hp dragster engine is the same as a 2000hp airplane engine is the same as a 2000hp locomotive engine is the same as a 2000hp marine diesel....bulls**t! and doesn't change from tech 5 specs at all.

FFS1/2 and FFS3 ( if merely based on what's come before ) will have severe weaknesses with some things.
For some things, I think it should be done from scratch. But as has been pointed out, so long as the end result gives decent in-game stats, it doesn't matter what the rules are.

 

[clementk]

Another potential problem is GURPS Vehicles is for GURPS 3e. Ultra-Tech for GURPS 4e is on its way through the printing process and the vehicle design PDF is in the works, with a spaceship and other printed books of designed vehicles to follow.

I'd prefer if FF&S3 is to be a seperate book it be more along the lines of FF&S1 and cover more than the OTU tech base, if possible. And no starburst watermark or forumula symbol gaffs.

IIRC BTRC did some of the design systems for T4 and at least the weapon books, so I'm fine with that. Just no idea if he's willing to work on a Traveller product again after T4.

I do like the idea of a worked out technical architecture underlying the designs in the game so things mesh well with each other, as long as it doesn't get in the way of fun.

 

[robject]

So far, the leanings are that FFS2 weapon design is fine, and vehicle design is going to need a lot of work. In other words, FFS3 can't be just FFS2; it's looking like a significant revision. And it's probably going to at least borrow concepts from FFS1.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Jamus: what kind of revolver?.. a .44 colt dragoon?...or a .357 magnum?...or a .22 plinker....

Let's see...

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Pistol TL Cr Mass Range Dmg Shots

Black powder 3 400 1 0 2 1
Magnum 10 450 1.5 2 3 6
cP003 11 750 0.5 1 5 10/20
Body 13 1500 0.1 0 2 1 </pre>[/QUOTE]Assuming T4 used FFS2 to generate these pistols, it can be said that they are consistent with respect to each other and the game as a whole. Also, other pistols generated with FFS2 are similarly compatible with these pistols and any others coming from FFS2.

That's the utility of FFS2. It's not the only way to come up with consistent stuff, but it's definitely a way, and (at least for weapons) it's done.

 

[robject]

FFS2 ought to be useful for designing real-world tanks.


The "Mark I" through "Mark IV" are probably decent TL4 tank designs which FFS2 ought to be able to model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_tank#Mark_IV

Another TL4 model is the Schneider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_CA1


Here's a TL5 example of what FFS2 ought to be able to produce: the Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther".

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">TL: 5
Volume: 4-5 tons (6.9m x 3.4m x 3m)
Crew: 5 (Driver, radio-operator, commander, gunner, loader)
Armor: 12cm
Armaments:
1×7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70
2×7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34
Power: 700 hp (520 kW) internal combustion (petrol)
Road speed: 55 kph</pre>[/QUOTE]Here's the Russion T34-85:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">TL: 5
Volume: 4 tons
Crew: 4
Armor: 7cm
Armaments:
1×76.2mm F-34 tank gun
2×7.62mm DT machine guns
Power: 500 hp (373 kW) internal comb (petrol)
Road Speed: 55 kph</pre>[/QUOTE]A good TL6 tank is the British Centurion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank

One or more of the M60A1, A2, and A3 tanks could represent a TL7 design.

The M-1 Abrams is probably a decent TL8 tank: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

 

[aramis]

Rest assured, Mr. Porter (who essentially IS BTRC) will do whatever pays his bills...

And I'm all for consistent. My argument against dual layers is essentially that it creates an inconsistent design dichotomy.

I've used the following vehicular design systems: G:Humanx, G:Space 1, G:V2, G:V3, Striker, CT (Ships only, Bk2 & HG), MT, FF&S 1&2, Spacemaster 1st and 2nd eds (2nd is in Armored assault), Battletech, Renegade Legion (All three), Mekton II & MTS, Mekton Empire, Mekton Zeta/Zeta+, CORPS VDS, EABA, Car Wars, D-Trek (ships only), Star Frontiers (Ships only), Reichstar (Ships only), Fasa-Trek (ships only).

I used to be a serious gearhead... until TNE broke me of it. FF&S 1 was just too likely to trip me up for anything less than full-on committee efforts. Yes, some find it great... but are they going to fund the edition with their sales?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Rest assured, Mr. Porter (who essentially IS BTRC) will do whatever pays his bills...

Which might well be a reason for him to be disinterested after the T4 fiasco. Depends whether he was actually paid by IG.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Originally posted by Jamus:
why would i need to waste a page of paper and use a four function calculator to design a revolver ort a ground car when rules for a revolver and ground car already exist along with almost every other piece of hardware a traveller is likely to run into. can someone explain to me what pleasure is derived from doing math?

Some people climb mountains, some build ships in bottles, others crunch numbers.

If you don't need custom ships/guns/whatever, fine, no problem. There will be plenty of ready made ones to use. Different people have different needs.

 

[robject]

The issue is whether it's going to be harder to revise FFS2 or use another existing product, such as CORPS VDS and GGG.

Apparently, FFS2 has a good weapons-build section, so we don't need GGG.

However, if we use all of FFS2, the vehicle design section will see significant revision; mainly in tuning the base Traveller assumptions.

 

[mike wightman]

Ok, keep FF&S2 as the core.

Take out or revise a few bits - fusion+, the TLs at which the different maneuver drives become available;
add the bits from FF&S1 that didn't make it into 2 (including the additions from Vampire Fleets, Striker II, and the various Challenge articles.

Format wise I preferred FF&S1 over FF&S2.

 

[robject]

Here is the process for FFS3.

1) Decide how the systems work in T5.
2) Modify the existing FF&S "Framework".
3) Streamline the framework.

We're partway through #1, and #2 will be straightforward once the first issue is known. #3 will be helped by hull- and volume-related tweaks.


Here is a list of issues with FFS2.

Plasma/Fusion weapon errata from FFS1 needs to be propagated through. And even so, these weapons need to be made useful.

Hull volume calculations needs work.

Drives require significant rework.

Comms probably need rework.

Crew calculation needs rework.

Ranges for space weapons and sensors needs adjustment (more capable "Passive" sensors
and less capable "Active" sensors).

Volume requirements for carried craft are too low.

Existing ground vehicles cannot be recreated (ex: Sherman and Panther tanks).

 

[robject]

So, we're not looking at a rewrite, but we are looking at a number of changes, some more tangled than others.

If the changes are significant enough, we may try to form a design team to implement the changes.

 

[rhoneycutt]

here's my idea for volume calcs:

height*width*length*shape constant(volume)
height*width*length*shape constant(surface area)

this would define a 'bounding box of known volume and surface area multiplied by some constant for different shapes. Sphere/Eliipsoid volume would be .5236, for example. the constant would be a ratio of shape's volume to bounding box volume...shape's surface area to bounding box area. similar constants could be found for frontal area and lifting area for aero stats. The constant would appear to be proportional to drag coefficient; '1', a box would be high drag, whereas an ellipsoid ( .5236 ) would be low.

This would allow for ships of different length ratios..aka 'fineness' without problem, and would allow such values to by found easily with a simple 4-function calculator.

( I never seen FFS2 so I don't know how they do it )

 

[Anthony]

That proposal generates incorrect surface areas for all shapes, and cannot even be tweaked to generate correct values for most shapes.

 

[aramis]

Shere: a much more realistic sa forumla is:

((height*width)+(height*length)+(width*length))*shape constant.

However, a simpler, but workable formula (though it needs a sci-calc) is vol^(2/3)*shape factor. If vol is in cubic meters, SA is in square meters. This is basic three-dimensional geometry.

Geometry, however, fails the "10-year old" rule, and so SA needs most likely to simply "go away."

 

[Anthony]

If you want a relatively simple formula, for objects of fixed aspect ratio:
Volume = Vshape * Length^3
Area = Ashape * Length^2

However, it's hard to use that formula when all you know is the volume of the ship. If you know the volume of the ship, area is Ashape * V^2/3, which is messy enough to possibly call for table lookup.

(H*W + W*L + H*L) *K doesn't actually work for shapes other than boxes.

 

[rhoneycutt]

so I overused the cut'n'paste and screwed up SA formula...what you said is what I meant to say.

use l,w,h dimensions to find volume, not vice-versa.

the SA one needs work, but a reasonable appoximation is better than what exists now. I would have thought even surface areas could be approximated in a ratio to a bounding box for basic solids. Maybe for prisms and cylinders perhaps? hmmmmmmmmmmm..I can now see that it is no. Something to refresh myself on, I guess. But I aim to contribute to the game in areas that I feel it is weak in. And hull volume was specifically mentioned by robject, so I share my ideas.

Aramis: SA is need for lots of things...... total number of hardpoints on a hull, and cost of jump grids, for example. Aero stuff too...
I do not care if what I do is marketable.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Jamus: what kind of revolver?.. a .44 colt dragoon?...or a .357 magnum?...or a .22 plinker....

Let's see...

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Pistol TL Cr Mass Range Dmg Shots

Black powder 3 400 1 0 2 1
Magnum 10 450 1.5 2 3 6
cP003 11 750 0.5 1 5 10/20
Body 13 1500 0.1 0 2 1 </pre>[/QUOTE]Assuming T4 used FFS2 to generate these pistols, it can be said that they are consistent with respect to each other and the game as a whole. Also, other pistols generated with FFS2 are similarly compatible with these pistols and any others coming from FFS2.
</font>[/QUOTE]A good discussion.
Don’t forget the underlying game mechanics. If weapons do damage in multiples of D6, then a .44 colt dragoon, a .357 magnum and a .22 plinker could all end up doing the same damage like in CT. Jamus question is then of critical importance. What is the value of an accurate and complex system to design a large number of subtly different weapons whose actual impact on the game will be identical?

Focus your efforts where it will matter with a level of detail that makes a difference. Striker was full of items that required detailed selection and calculations but in the end had little effect beyond altering the cost of a multi-million credit item by a few hundred credits - which were ultimately dropped when rounding off the price to MCr.

Avoid much ado about nothing,
Arthur

 

[robject]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Jamus: what kind of revolver?.. a .44 colt dragoon?...or a .357 magnum?...or a .22 plinker....

Don’t forget the underlying game mechanics. If weapons do damage in multiples of D6, then a .44 colt dragoon, a .357 magnum and a .22 plinker could all end up doing the same damage like in CT. Jamus question is then of critical importance. What is the value of an accurate and complex system to design a large number of subtly different weapons whose actual impact on the game will be identical?

Focus your efforts where it will matter with a level of detail that makes a difference. Striker was full of items that required detailed selection and calculations but in the end had little effect beyond altering the cost of a multi-million credit item by a few hundred credits - which were ultimately dropped when rounding off the price to MCr.

Avoid much ado about nothing,
Arthur </font>[/QUOTE]And that is a good point. Really that should be the first and last point.

In my mind, technical design should work at one degree lower than the scale of the game, but no lower. For over ten years or more, Traveller prefers to work up from rock bottom. As long as I don't have to, then okay.

At any rate, Traveller apparently has a fine firearms design system already (FFS2), and we ought to move on.