FFS3 for T5

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
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.

Simplicity is probably more important than accuracy. With the possible exception of the original Scout Ship, every Traveller ship I have ever seen is too complex of a geometric shape to accurately calculate either volume or surface area. For most applications requiring surface area, a rough approximation will probably be good enough. Is it that important to be able to calculate the number of hard points with four decimal place precision? The ultimate goal is to allow a ship with more surface area to mount more hard points and require more armor than a ship with less surface area, so any reasonable approximation should accomplish the desired results.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
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.

Game mechanics is more important than accuracy. Case in point: many of the values in Fire, Fusion, and Steel 2's tables are so close to each other that they may be considered rounding errors. Other values are so insignificant that they are eclipsed by natural precision error in larger components. In other words, complexity is a double-edged sword.

 

[Anthony]

While FF&S2 could produce extremely detailed values, in practice statistics for real-world equipment vary within the first significant figure and are pretty much totally random by the second significant figure, so really, any accuracy beyond that is pointless. High Guard is about the right level of detail for starships.

 

[robject]

Here's what I want FFS3 to be like.

EABA Stuff! example: Laser Rifle

The basic worksheet is for determining damage. That's what we used.

+34 points : Early Post-Atomic era
-1 point: Average/Hard tech
-17 points: Weapon size ("16 millihex")
-2 points: Compact ammo (suggested for lasers)
+3 points: Handheld/shoulder-fired

Total: 17 points

Damage is (total/3). I ignore fractions. So,

Damage = 5D.

Time to design: 15 minutes (working online with another guy).


Example 2: Laser Carbine

Adjusting the size to "10 millihex" yields Damage = 4D.

Time to design: < 10 seconds

Example 3: Laser Pistol

+34 points : Early Post-Atomic era
-1 point: Average/Hard tech
-21 points: Weapon size ("8 millihex")
-2 points: Compact ammo (suggested for lasers)
+1 points: Handheld (pistol)

Damage = 3D.

Time to design: about 15 seconds.


From what I can tell, the beauty in "EABA Stuff!" is that it is layered while also being integrated.

The simple layer is straightforward, and equations and interrelations are handled by the way the design is built and organized. Greg did most of the conversion math up-front in a huge relationships table.

In all designs, outputs are described in game terms. In some cases more detail is given at the (very) detailed level, but the offshoot is, for example, I could design a Heavy TL5 Gun and a TL5 Tracked, Armored vehicle (thereby producing a TL5 Tank) with a pencil and paper, within that consistent design system, by adding and subtracting whole numbers only.

If I wanted to, I could drill down into a detailed weapons design process to tweak out something a little more gearheaded. But the thing is, I don't have to.

The other point is that design is so easy and so flexible that we don't need an encyclopedic number of vehicles and weapons pre-generated. A few common examples will do. A tank, a truck, the ATV, the GCarrier.


That's what I want FFS3 to be.

 

[rhoneycutt]

different revolvers question: I feel that damage should be proportional to total energy that the target absorbs, thus a revolver with greater muzzle energy should produce more damage on average, but the d6 variations are due to hitting organs or grazing, etc.

FFS2 accuracy question: AS with my 2000hp engine example, I think many of FFS1/2's parts are over complex in some areas and over simplified in others with the rules focusing on what the designers expected the typical sci-fi gamer to build. Numbers seem to be meant in some cases to appeal to typical gamers. BSD combat armor with AV=8 would be too heavy to carry based on thickness and body area, for example. Transmissions/suspensions for contact vehicles are given short shrift, perhaps because such things don't make sci-fi fans drool.

What about maintainence/breakdowns? any part being made to handle more that it is designed to has a greater chance of breaking. But allow lighter versions of everything be made so ppl can cut mass to bare minimum. Let standard basic game stuff be typical,and yet the design rules should allow for "hot rodding" and the breakage that comes with it.

as far as the volume stuff.......I think bouding box*shape modifier is enough...box/cylinder/ellipsoid/cone/wedge ( cylinder/cone can have elliptical bases ) should be all the shapes needed to approximate most ships/things
SA can use something similar despite the errors for shapes that have high eccentrics ...an approximation is all thats needed and better than the simple sphere area modified by hull type.

I guess I might start a thread with what my ideas might be to not distract this thread any further.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The people who'll buy FF&S3 are the same kind of people who bought FF&S1&2 - gearheads who like detail and don't mind number-crunching. Tidy it up, sure, but there's no reason to dumb it down, because the people who'll use it can handle the maths, and the people who can't handle the maths won't buy the book (they'll use stock gear or SDS).

SDS obviously needs to be simpler than FF&S, but it needs to be *based on FF&S*, otherwise they'll end up incompatible. How are you going to get a point-based design system out of FF&S?

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Anthony:
(H*W + W*L + H*L) *K doesn't actually work for shapes other than boxes.

Actually, it works just fine for uniform ellipsoids, since you have pi^2 in all terms.

 

[atpollard]

I agree with your design philosophy and just wanted to add that my concerns on excess complexity were addressed to vehicle design as well as weapon design.

I like the way High Guard reduces items to simple formula that generate an almost infinite number of variations with the freedom to use or ignore items based on the design goal.

I would suggest that whatever system you employ for FFS3, the methodology for creating vehicles, weapons and/or devices should be the same. Avoid the mistake of one system for one type of item and an different type of system for another type of item.

For example, someone desiring to create a Mech-like robot warrior should be able to use the vehicle rules to create an armored body, the robot rules for the artificial brain and sensors and the weapon rules for chainsaw hands to attack.

One system to rule them all.
Arthur

 

[robject]

Thanks all for your comments. After falling in love with EABA, it still comes down to Traveller already having a technical design system. Yes, it has to be revised for T5, but it's still a functioning baseline. Plus there are some things that just don't seem adaptable to EABA without significant additions. Plus there are conversion issues to wade through.

Now I'm researching how difficult it would be to derive effects-based point tables from FFS2 equations. If it proves doable, I expect that either a middle layer or the SDS itself will use them.

By the way, design via effects-based tables is simpler than design via High Guard, and might be about the same level of detail as MegaTraveller vehicle design.

But if the number of tables or number of components is beyond a certain threshold, then it may be a middle layer, with the SDS being lists of components.

Those are my opinions. YMMV, and Actual MMV.

 

[Commander Drax]

I agree with Andrew Boulton, having followed this thread for a couple of days, as well as being a veteran of all of the many and various Traveller design systems I am of the opinion that something along the lines of the MegaTraveller sequences be used, as they are flexible enough that great variety in designs can be produced and yet simple enough that a small to medium sized ship can be created within half an hour. Earlier design sequences like high guard or book 2 are nice and user friendly and work well for thruster powered ships. It would be awkward to integrate, rocket engines, plasma drives, Ion engines and Heplar with these types of systems.

My favourite for detail is FFS-1 and Brilliant Lances, though designs created by these rules are frequently not completed because the design process takes too long and mistakes are common.

Whilst I agree that simpler sequences throw up less errors, they do lack versatility, the best balance between complexity and ease of use is undoutably the rules printed in MegaTraveller. sadly these rules are not realistic in a number of ways such as small merchants having power plants of MW990+ with no obvious way of dissipating the excess heat generated, by such a powerful plant. (Many a discussion has raged on these boards about the bulk of the fuel consumed being used as coolant etc, with only a tiny amount used to generate fusion).

On the plus side, MegaTraveller did allow for scaling or economies of efficiency with bigger power plants throwing out more energy than smaller plants.

As an aside please tell me more about the ceramic heat coils mentioned in the Ben Bova Mars books?

 

[GypsyComet]

I'm all for "how does this affect play" being the driving philosophy. BUT. Traveller is an RPG that has spawned side games like ground war (Striker) and fleet combat (High Guard, Battle Rider, et al), NOT the other way around.

If fleet combat level detail was all we needed, we could stop at High Guard. It covers "how can this ship fight, how long will it last, and who can it take out" fairly well at the fleet level of abstraction. Fleet combat isn't all of Traveller. Fundamentally Traveller is about the crew of PCs trying to stay alive, so I'm far more interested in ship and vehicle design from the point of view of being able to answer the questions my players ask: "Do we have laser comm that can reach the port?" "No? How long will we need to thrust to reach that range?" "No M-Drive because it took a hit? How long will it take to fix, even to 0.1G?"

As such, Book 2 and HG's approach is not enough if I want to give consistent answer to the above PC questions. At the same time, I *would* like to be able to design a new ship in 5 minutes given the need, and worry about the little details later. Better yet, I'd like to have that 5 minute system in place knowing the details have already been dealt with:

("What does a Type S keep for sensors after it goes to the Reserves? Active Scouts have a Basic Military Bridge plus either the Pinpoint or Limited Survey packages, so I'll assume the add-on was removed." Flip to the 'crunchy bits appendix' and look up 'Basic Military Bridge' for components. Aha, Laser Comm 0.1 AU.)

Do I need to know how many miles of wire went into that bridge? No. Will I want to be able to hit the detailed section and build my own "More Money Than Sense" Nobleman's Bridge? Sure.

Why do I need to know that a radio costs Cr5000 when it's going into a ship that costs MCr80? When replacing that radio after an attempted hijack means the difference TO A PC SHIP OWNER between making the payment and being allowed by the port to lift at all. It doesn't matter that the ship is hugely expensive if the Captain doesnt have that Cr5000 to spare...

The armchair admirals of Traveller fandom are worth some attention, yes, but it doesn't matter how far into the round-offs a component's price tag is if a PC can hold that component in one hand and wonder if he's already dead and doesn't know it because that piece isn't working.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Well said.

 

[aramis]

The question is, Gypsy, "Will T5 have a market for subsidiary games?"

Those subsidiary games had a market in yesteryear. Will the nintendo & sony generations be willing to play those type games? Will the boardgamers continue to overlap with the roleplayers?

For a variety of reasons, I doubt both of these secondary questions to be answered affirmatively, and thus the primary question as well.

In the 1980's, most of my RPGing friends did play boardgames as well. Now, most do not. (Excluding for the moment, family games like monopoly, trivial pursuit, aggravation, etc.) The divide seems to grow deeper with age.

D20 MIGHT just pull it back. It's iffy. And the levels of detail in current successful boardgames are less. Even SFB suffers for "too much detail" and so Federation Commander was born.

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The question is, Gypsy, "Will T5 have a market for subsidiary games?"

Based on the way the non-computer/console games market is going, the only way for T5 to spawn viable sub-games is for there to be miniatures. Lots of pretty miniatures. Something extremely visual. A fleet game, armor game, or skirmish game.

This is why I suggested *a year ago* that the Megaminis license (now bought by someone else, apparently) be expanded into a couple of small-scale sub games to A) get Traveller into the radar of the current minis crowd, and B) help pin down the combat/task mechanics that, ultimately, everything else depends on.

Without something like this, the ship minis will remain a curiosity regardless of who produces them, and the "RPG" minis line will never reach completion, with there being no drive to buy more than one of anything.

As you imply, asking the current "hobby" to "derive the action game from the rules yourself" is asking too much. Similarly, asking modern players to appreciate High Guard (a fleet combat game so abstract that it doesn't require a *board*) is asking a bit much.

But unless a sub game of some sort becomes THE moneymaker of T5, the rules and design systems need to concentrate on serving the default core of Traveller, which is the ROLE PLAYING GAME.

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Even SFB suffers for "too much detail" and so Federation Commander was born.

"Even" SFB? "To much detail" is a problem SFB has had since before it left the digest-sized rulebooks. In the spectrum of space combat games, SFB has always occupied the "detail over speed" end of the spectrum. This is extremely cumbersome in a game about ship-to-ship or fleet-to-fleet (tried that once, *shudder*) combat.

Take SFB in an RPG light, however, and the detail becomes much more appropriate. The power of *context* means a fight will be shorter, since those crew boxes might contain a PC or three, and the fight is part of a larger mission. The ship is also being flown by several players, instead of there being several ships per player.

Would I incorporate SFB in all its glory into a Star Trek RPG? Certainly, because Trek RPG players want that kind of control. Would I use it for fleet actions? Only if I had nothing else to do that week.

 

[Scott Martin]

(Chuckles)

Iliked SFB, but have been deliberately avoiding "SFB-like" rules design because of its complexity. Games that seem to do well in the current market tend to be the "card" type games that require simple underlying rules and can be played in their entirety in 30 minutes or less, and have lots of "eye candy".

If you put a "not" in front of all of these statements you almost define SFB

I agree that we're pretty much at a standstill until we have an underlying game mechanic / task system...

 

[aramis]

Realistically, we need to be able to generate the following level of detail:

1) all the combat data the system will use, but Not One Whit more...
2) The level of comfort and spare space for deckplaning & RP.
3) The mercantile capabilities (cargo, maintenance)
4) The costs to build, buy, repair, and modify ship designs
5) Durations of power, LS, food, and water.
6) important non-combat functions for RP purposes (Computer interaction, exemplars of SR's, lounges, meals; commo ranges)

It's one thing to assume MFI/MRE type meals in design, and another to assume TV Dinner type meals, and yet a third to assume on-board cooking ala Firefly.

The trick is to not to overburden in detail, nor to be too schematic.

Decipher Trek and HG are too schematic for many. Space Opera is comparable to MT in complexity, but lacks "verisimilitude details" by use of unexplained magic-tech weapons.

FF&S1/2 is too hard... the error rates alone prove that.

 

[Commander Drax]

Well the solution seems simple, everyone who has posted so far should post again - a simple statement as to what design rules they use the most (not necessarily the one's they think are best) - the majority should win, i.e. if more people post for high guard then the new rules for T5 should reflect the structure and style of high guard.

So far the design rules that appear to be available as sources of influence are

Book 2
High Guard
MegaTraveller (including coacc & Hard Times)
TNE - FFS1/Brilliant Lances including related products (Vampire fleets etc)
T4 - QSDS (all versions)
T4 - SSDS
T4 - FFS2
T20 - Design Rules
Gurps Traveller

I will start the ball rolling and say that the rules I use the most are T20

 

[mike wightman]

Book 2.

 

[The Oz]

High Guard