OTU Only: "Of Course All Published Designs Are Wrong" [and Sensible Defaults]

[robject]

I've seen it, and heard it more times than I've seen it. Designs that can't be replicated. Rules violations. And mistakes.

Detailed ship design rules are created, to the point where it's not possible to know if a ship design is broken unless you go over it, without the constraints of a deadline or a budget. Fine tooth comb mandatory.

I've DONE this: created a ship design, then changed it, then changed it, then changed it again, talked about it with the author, tweaked it, submitted it, got the publication in my greasy hands... and a year later found an error in the design sheet.

Sensible Defaults

A teeny tiny part of this, and one of my self-appointed crusades, is to try to subversively suggest sane defaults in ship design:

"If you forget to specify it, you get a sensible default".

For examples...

- airlocks assumed
- basic landing gear assumed
- basic sensors [navigational and comms] assumed

 

[Vladika]

I've seen it, and heard it more times than I've seen it. Designs that can't be replicated. Rules violations. And mistakes.

Detailed ship design rules are created, to the point where it's not possible to know if a ship design is broken unless you go over it, without the constraints of a deadline or a budget. Fine tooth comb mandatory.

I've DONE this: created a ship design, then changed it, then changed it, then changed it again, talked about it with the author, tweaked it, submitted it, got the publication in my greasy hands... and a year later found an error in the design sheet.

I can feel an axiom brewing. Something about rules usability, granularity, and fudge factors, perhaps.

A program, or a spread sheet, can have a hidden error.

IF the rules are right, the old fashioned way, pencil and paper, work very well.

If you are talking about the classic traveler ship, they were never done, logically, at all, in any way, by the published rules.

 

[mike wightman]

The more complexity in the design system the greater the potential for error.

Changing design systems and thinking you can get the same output so its not worth more than a cursory re-design is a big mistake too.

Using house rules in published designs leads to errors.

Having a secret design system that is completely in-house and changes from author to author depending on their pet projects leads to errors.

Take a look at the first three traveller ships written up in any detail:

Annic Nova

Kinunir

Gazelle

each one of them uses design rules that aren't in a published book (at the time of publication) or misapply the design rules or just break them completely.

Then you have iconic designs that are completely invalidated by shipbuilding rules changes - I'm looking at you x-boat.

Next, you take a simple shipbuilding system, build a more advanced version based on % rather than tables, and you switch the bloody drives around and don't spot it - twice.

Then you revise your basic game ship building rules and instead of fixing it you make it worse with yet more incompatibility with previous designs.

Ahhhh - now I feel better

 

[McPerth]

Having a secret design system that is completely in-house and changes from author to author depending on their pet projects leads to errors.

And to being unable to share de designs with others that don't use your system (or to use their designs), off course. That's the good thing of a unified system (whatever versión it might be).

 

[flykiller]

I can feel an axiom brewing. Something about rules usability, granularity, and fudge factors, perhaps.

GIGO covers it quite well.

 

[robject]

The more complexity in the design system the greater the potential for error.

This is the source of most of my current pain. Part of my self-appointed job is to try to subversively suggest sane defaults in ship design: if you forget to specify it, you get a "sensible default".

each one of them [Kinunir, Gazelle, ANNIC NOVA] uses design rules that aren't in a published book (at the time of publication) or misapply the design rules or just break them completely.

Then you have iconic designs that are completely invalidated by shipbuilding rules changes - I'm looking at you x-boat.

And this is a chronic source of pain as well. Currently under control.

Ahhhh - now I feel better

LOL. Yeah, I knew Mike was on board with these sentiments!

 

[robject]

So, part of my self-appointed job is to try to subversively suggest sane defaults in ship design:

"If you forget to specify it, you get a sensible default".



Without getting too ridiculous of course.

I'll build up a list of sensible defaults in the OP as I go.

 

[Carlobrand]

Without criticizing specific game variants, some systems are easier to design and proofread than others. No real excuse for a major error when it's a simple system but, for the more complex games, most of these published designs date from an era when the software to do the checks we now take for granted either didn't exist or was pricey and unfamiliar to anyone but skilled accountants. I'm not terribly bothered by grandfathering in an error in a published ship from a complex system under such circumstances.

I also try to keep in mind, as Mike points out, that some ship designs are victims of evolving rules: the writer did the best he could with the rules he was handed and then someone changes the rules. (That someone maybe should have given some thought to the impact on ships of the previous design rule era, but the deed is done, so there's little that can be done for it now.) And, as with Annic Nova and Leviathan, some were the product of imaginative minds who decided to ignore a few rules in pursuit of a sense of wonder and "alienness" or - well, I'm honestly not sure why they thought they needed jump torpedoes. (That one strikes me as a recipe for some truly nasty mischief.)

 

[Timerover51]

I've seen it, and heard it more times than I've seen it. Designs that can't be replicated. Rules violations. And mistakes.

Detailed ship design rules are created, to the point where it's not possible to know if a ship design is broken unless you go over it, without the constraints of a deadline or a budget. Fine tooth comb mandatory.

I've DONE this: created a ship design, then changed it, then changed it, then changed it again, talked about it with the author, tweaked it, submitted it, got the publication in my greasy hands... and a year later found an error in the design sheet.

Sensible Defaults

A teeny tiny part of this, and one of my self-appointed crusades, is to try to subversively suggest sane defaults in ship design:

"If you forget to specify it, you get a sensible default".

For examples...

- airlocks assumed
- basic landing gear assumed
- basic sensors [navigational and comms] assumed

Airlocks and landing gear come under cost of the Hull as far as I am concerned, while basic sensors are covered by the cost of the Bridge.

The cost of the Engineering plant, Jump Drives/Maneuver Drives/Power Plant covers the cost of the fuel tanks and associated plumbing and electrical runs.

The total displacement of a completed design is made up of the following items, viz.

1. General equipment.
2. Armament.
3. Machinery.
4. Engineer's stores.
5. Coal.
6. Armour and protection to hull, armour and protection armament.
7. Hull, including structure and fittings.
8. Board margin.

. . . this is very notable when we consider that about one-half of the weight of hull in a war-ship is concerned with fittings, etc., which do not contribute primarily to the structural strength.

The above quote comes from the following book.

WAR-SHIPS: A TEXT-BOOK ON THE CONSTRUCTION, PROTECTION, STABILITY, TURNING, ETC., OF WAR VESSELS, by Edward L. Attwood, copyright 1917. Mr. Atwood was a member of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors for the Royal Navy.

Based on that, and several other books of naval architecture that I have, both for military and civilian ships, the simple and straightforward design sequence in Classic Traveller is quite adequate for basic ship design.

If you want it more complicated, then you are effectively a naval architect, which I view for game purposes to be quite unnecessary.

 

[aramis]

One thing to keep in mind: the Architecht's fees shouldn't be included in list prices - the builder only pays for them ONCE, no matter how many he builds, and they have to be in-hand to secure financing, so they are not part of the financed price, either.
They should be listed in the ship writeups, tho'.

 

[mike wightman]

Leviathan included jump torpedoes because they were mentioned as variant missile types in the CT '77 LBB2; since the writers of A:4 didn't know that at some point in the future MWM would decide there are no such things - despite them being in the original game he wrote - they decided to include them since they make perfect sense for an exploratory cruiser to be able to send messages.

Considering how badly A:4 fits with subsequent canon it should probably just be re-conned out of existence - along with the MT ship design paradigm and the TNE design paradigm.

 

[Hyphen]

Considering how badly A:4 fits with subsequent canon it should probably just be re-conned out of existence - along with the MT ship design paradigm and the TNE design paradigm.

The problem with saying this is that you are saying "I hate Striker too!"

I rather *like* the MT system. (Once I've applied the errata, that is.) It gives me a bit more interest down at the PC level than High Guard does - a bit more gear, so I can say "OK, you could try the Active EMS - or the neutrino sensor - or the densitometer!"

Just a bit more "sci" in my "fi", so the players know they're not on Terra any more. And then they detect (or not) whatever is needed to forward the plot. With them thinking they're somehow in charge of their own destiny, and without them thinking the plot's on rails (usually a pre-published adventure).

;-) ;-)

(J-torps? A TL 16 experimental product from Glisten. Flakey, unreliable. See the notes somewhere in my Repair Bays.)

 

[Orr]

Considering how badly A:4 fits with subsequent canon it should probably just be re-conned out of existence - along with the MT ship design paradigm and the TNE design paradigm.

While it's a nice adventure dealing with actual exploration, A:4 doesn't fit in the OTU at all. The ship, the background, the plot, none of it fits at all.

IIRC, Hans Rancke tried to salvage it somewhat by setting the adventure several centuries before the CT Golden Era. Alos, IIRC, you can find that attempt at SJGames JTAS zine.

Hopefully he'll pop in to give us the actual information.

 

[rancke]

While it's a nice adventure dealing with actual exploration, A:4 doesn't fit in the OTU at all. The ship, the background, the plot, none of it fits at all.

Sadly, follow-up material set in the Trojan Reach have all incorporated the background information regardless.

IIRC, Hans Rancke tried to salvage it somewhat by setting the adventure several centuries before the CT Golden Era. Alos, IIRC, you can find that attempt at SJGames JTAS zine.

Hopefully he'll pop in to give us the actual information.

Yes, I backdated it to the Year 400. It grew to become two setting articles (Players' and Referee's information) and the Leviathan:400 adventure. I had a lot of fun backdating District 268 and Glisten subsectors to Year 400. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in addition to the merchant exploration, such as the Dustspice Wars. I really hope it will become canon one day.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Sadly, follow-up material set in the Trojan Reach have all incorporated the background information regardless.


Yes, I backdated it to the Year 400. It grew to become two setting articles (Players' and Referee's information) and the Leviathan:400 adventure. I had a lot of fun backdating District 268 and Glisten subsectors to Year 400. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in addition to the merchant exploration, such as the Dustspice Wars. I really hope it will become canon one day.


Hans

Ooh, sounds interesting. Where can we find that?

 

[rancke]

Ooh, sounds interesting. Where can we find that?

JTAS Online. Search for 'Outrim Frontier'.


Hans