New Beta of HGS 1.1 (b6) ready

[AndreaV]

For those who don't follow the CT-starships list the latest beta version of my High Guard ship designer is ready for you to break. This takes the text export up to offensive weapons.

You can find it at the CT-Starships list file area (no I don't have the URL at the moment) or email me. My website at downport is experiencing temporary problems, but it will be there soon too.

 

[Jame]

What's the difference between Book 2 ship design and High Guard? And was there ever an updated Book 2?

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Jame]:
What's the difference between Book 2 ship design and High Guard? And was there ever an updated Book 2?

Bk 2: drives rated by letters, jump drive percentages considerably higher than Bk 5. Only four weapons: Beam Laser, Pulse Laser, Missile, and sandcaster. Only installations are 1 ton turrets, either single, double, or triple. No defenses (aside from sand). Maximum 5000ton ships.

Bk5: all drives installed as percentage of ship tonnages. Computers determine maximum sizes. Maximum size 1000000 tons. Additional weapons include plasma beams, fusion beams, particle beams, meson guns, missile bays, laser bays, nuclear missiles. Additional defenses include armor, meson screens, nuclear dampers, black globes. different PP fuel formula.

In short, Bk 5 designs are almost wholly different in terms of powerplants, jump drives, and maneuver drives. (It is impossible to build a J6 M1 P6+ design under book 2...)

 

[aramis]

Sorry, meant to say J6 M1 P6 100Td design under book 2 is impossible.

70 tons of fuel, 20 tons of bridge, 20 tons of jump drive....

And Thrash, the CT designs are NOT fomulaic becuase they do not use a SINGLE formula per drive type.

Yes, there is a good islannd of stability. But you can't use the formulae you derived to MAKE a valid Bk2 design.... since valid designs use ONLY the Letter rated drives.
And the letter ratings are used for damage taking, too, so bigger ships lose capacity less quickly than in Bk5.

But they do equate to one hit doing X tons of damage of a given type. Here's a guide, in tons per hit:
Fuel: 20Td
Weapons: 1Td
PP: 3Td (+1 ton at A)
MD: 2Td (-1 ton at A)
JD: 5Td (+5 ton at A)

Which always implied to me that at an A rating being lost, PP and JD were non functional, but still present. MD, however, are abviously destroyed when the A rating is lost...

Computers and Hulls are not covered in Tons Damage per hit.

Bk 2 is a wholly different paradigm of ship design and FLEET DESIGN from book 5.

 

[mike wightman]

And the letter ratings are used for damage taking, too, so bigger ships lose capacity less quickly than in Bk5.

Not if you use the Book 5 to Book 2 damage conversion that was given in the K'kree Alien module which states that each hit on a (HG)drive reduces the drive number by 0.2. Damaged drives function at their current number, rounded down. This makes book 5 drives reduce due to hits in book 2 combat more like the letter rated drives of book 2.

And I was going to use that one as a trivia question , never mind

.

I think you're right about the paradigm shift, from small ship universe to large ship universe, reversing the relative sizes of maneuver drives and jump drives etc. I wonder why Book2 2nd edition or any later version of CT didn't adopt any of the changes made by Book5?

 

[aramis]

W-Z prove the formulaic approach is in error for high capacity drive performance.

You missed my point, Chris.

We can't extrapolate further, because the paradigm for performace is non-linear improvements at W. Different performance formula, ie, performance dcouples from size.

That the sizes are formulaic is obvious. BUT DRIVE PERFORMANCE IS NOT. You even acknowledged this:

For drives W-Z, N continues to increase by 200 per letter for "mass" and cost calculations, but the actual capacity is greatly increased:

It was this very factor, in 1985, which annoyed me most about Bk 2 designs... Formulae don't work above a certain point.

You detailed anaylsis is the exact same one I did in high school, and have tried repeatedly over the years. It is a multi-formulaic plot, if the higer end is formulaic at all.

 

[savage]

Great.