FFS3 for T5

[Andrew Boulton]

Well that's *a* solution, but not a particularly good one, especially since it's already been agreed that the detailed design system will be an updated FF&S2 and the simple will be derived from it. In any case, T20 and GT are out, because MWM has no control over them.

For the record, though, FF&S2.

 

[aramis]

HG ++

 

[atpollard]

High Guard

 

[kafka47]

For me design is a secondary issue to legible description. I want to be able to describe the ship that the players see and be able to give some indication of its capacities which is why I like the MT ship descroptions (save, the Kiloliters part) however, the ship design rules in MT sucked for my imagination. I rather liked TNE FFE, as a catalogue to let my imagination soar...but again those were not very playable. Essentially, I would like any new rules to come with software that would either let draw ship deckplans or apply some standard lego pieces and let the computer do all the math for me. Otherwise, I come up with the ship and the computer makes it possible...Dalton's system works the best for me.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? [...]

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. [...] </font>[/QUOTE]An amusing thought: a fractal hull essentially has an infinite surface area. Good for munchkin designers.

 

[Anthony]

Nah, technically what matters for radiators and most other surface components is average cross-section. You can flatten all concave portions of a shape and it won't make any difference as far as heat radiators and the like are concerned.

I'd favor reducing hull shapes to three: dispersed, unstreamlined, and streamlined. If facing is going to play a role (it normally doesn't in space combat), change that to dispersed, short, long -- a streamlined shape is a 'long' shape with some aerodynamic smoothing.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by kafka47:
I rather liked TNE FFE, as a catalogue to let my imagination soar...

Fire, Fusion, and Steel 1 had great descriptive text. And its art wasn't bad, either.

 

[aramis]

Robject:

Fractal radiators only make any difference over flat when they are transferring by conductance... for radiation, it's the apparent surface area not the actual surface that matters most.

Otherwise, 2 large radiators are in fact better on fins.

 

[robject]

Anthony and Aramis, I wasn't referring to heat management for a fractal hull. I was thinking that a fractal hull could have an infinite number of hardpoints, since it has an infinite surface area...

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by robject:
Anthony and Aramis, I wasn't referring to heat management for a fractal hull. I was thinking that a fractal hull could have an infinite number of hardpoints, since it has an infinite surface area...

I didn't say heat management, either. Hardpoints are generally subject to the same restriction as heat radiators -- concave areas don't help because the edges of the concave area conflict.

 

[GypsyComet]

Maybe, but the "percent bearing" of a fractal hull would be brutally low...

 

[aramis]

Same net effect... a fractal hull is far less efficient than a flat, wide, thin triangle, or a long thin spine.

 

[Commander Drax]

Andrew I think you've misunderstood me -

Well that's *a* solution, but not a particularly good one, especially since it's already been agreed that the detailed design system will be an updated FF&S2 and the simple will be derived from it. In any case, T20 and GT are out, because MWM has no control over them.

For the record, though, FF&S2.

We all understand that the new system is going to be based on FFS1 & 2 - we were voting for the levels of complexity espoused by different rules sets - not as to what rules to actually use.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by GypsyComet:

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.

The question is, what does "5 minutes" mean? To me, it may mean 5 minutes in Book 2, but to Andrew, surely he can design a starship in 5 minutes with Andy Akins' FFS2 spreadsheet.

And all three of us can blur out a starship in a sentence or less.

"200t Jump 3 Maneuver 2 vessel" - 10 seconds

 

[GypsyComet]

To me, 5 minutes of making design decisions and having the math work out. Whether that's a software tool or long addition on a 3x5 card doesn't matter, as long as the decision making process *can* be as short as five minutes in any calculation environment.

Deckplans are something else again.

 

[Anthony]

Five minutes is actually unrealistic for any extant Traveller ship design system if you're making any effort to optimize, though it's adequate for merchant ships and other transports where you can just go 'the rest of the ship is cargo'.

Rating Traveller design sequences in order of complexity, I would say:
Book 2
Book 5
GURPS Traveller -- main book or Interstellar Wars
QSDS/SSDS
GURPS Vehicles
Fire Fusion and Steel (either version)
I'm not sure where Megatraveller falls on this list, I suspect somewhere in the middle.

I would consider GURPS Traveller about the limit of what is acceptable to the casual user, though QSDS/SSDS could possibly be massaged into acceptability.

 

[Commander Drax]

A simple design sequence is fine, and even ok for stats - but too simple can mean the death of a system such as the awful stat blocks for starships in T4 - which we're even less informative than their classic traveller counterparts - for me the design system has to inspire and stimulate the imagination whilst also providing enough detail for you, the referee to be able to describe the vessel's interior and significant systems - whilst TNE (FFS1) was good for this in many cases too much detail was applied in effect clogging the system - the best all round had to be MegaTraveller - where all the information provided was descriptive and could be relevent to most game situations. Please don't lose the 'colour' of the designs by oversimplifying the vessel descriptions.

 

[robject]

MT is very close to optimal, even with the bits that get on my nerves, for that very reason -- the design decisions you made were functional, relating to playability. Most of the detail was relevant.

I've got fewer and less intrusive problems with MT vehicle design than any other Traveller design system.

 

[mike wightman]

Aside - MT could be fixed - add an internal % required for hull armour and add a couple of more scale efficiency steps for power plants or increase the output modifier to produce more EPs for ships.

Speaking of which the scale efficiency should kick in at 13.5kl, 6.75kl etc. to coincide with the 13.5kl dT.
Alternatively go back to the otherwise standard 14kl per dT.

Consider also changing the fule use rates...

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Five minutes is actually unrealistic for any extant Traveller ship design system if you're making any effort to optimize, though it's adequate for merchant ships and other transports where you can just go 'the rest of the ship is cargo'.

Yep, completely agree.

Rating Traveller design sequences in order of complexity, I would say:
Book 2
Book 5
T20 & GURPS Traveller -- main book or Interstellar Wars
MT & BL TA & QSDS/SSDS & GT Starships[/i]
GURPS Vehicles
Fire Fusion and Steel (either version)
I'm not sure where MegaTraveller falls on this list, I suspect somewhere in the middle.

Good list.
I've added in itallics my thoughts on the missing design systems.[/qb][/quote]

I would consider GURPS Traveller about the limit of what is acceptable to the casual user, though QSDS/SSDS could possibly be massaged into acceptability. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I think the GT ISW design system is the best I've seen