[Robots] Three more questions

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
BTW, a statement that volume (liters) = weight (kilograms) is absurd. That means the same density as water - and your magazines and weapons would float....

What say you all concerning this non-existent volume data?

It may be absurd but it is also easy. Much easier than looking up materials density and calculating each different type of material in an item and...

It's a game notation and not meant to be taken too literally. A weapon listed as 1kg may "weigh" a little more or less, the "weight" being more of an abstract encumbrance figure. So saying it requires 1 liter of "volume" is likewise an abstraction to use in the game. Nothing more. If it's a functional weapon it won't float being made of dense stuff. If the "same" weapon is a parade weapon made of wood it WILL float. It's a game, apply a little fun and sense and the "rules" work well enough

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
BTW, a statement that volume (liters) = weight (kilograms) is absurd. That means the same density as water - and your magazines and weapons would float....

What say you all concerning this non-existent volume data?

It may be absurd but it is also easy. Much easier than looking up materials density and calculating each different type of material in an item and...

It's a game notation and not meant to be taken too literally. A weapon listed as 1kg may "weigh" a little more or less, the "weight" being more of an abstract encumbrance figure. So saying it requires 1 liter of "volume" is likewise an abstraction to use in the game. Nothing more. If it's a functional weapon it won't float being made of dense stuff. If the "same" weapon is a parade weapon made of wood it WILL float. It's a game, apply a little fun and sense and the "rules" work well enough

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Fritz88:

What say you all concerning this non-existent volume data?

For Ammo
(1) Get a hold of some density data for the component, e.g., a round of ammo, and/or wing it based off of materials. Back calculate volume, and multiply by a fudge/waste space factor (e.g., 1.1 to 1.25) to account for imperfect packing and the magazine itself.

(2) Get some data for real world firearm ammo, should be able to get both density and volume, if nothing else look up the size and volume of a 100 rounds box of 22 ammo, etc. Better yet get a box of 45 ACP ammo measure it. Get a hold of an actual magazine and measure the volume. Use this for a reality check, correction factor.

(3) Do the same as (2) for whatever data one can find on caseless ammo, trying to find ammo with same ballistic performance as standard, just no case. Use this to gauge the size/weight reductions that might occur with a 1 TL increase in ammo technology.

(4) If feeling the system design bug continue . Do the sames as (2) for black powder firearms. Now you have data points for the size/weight changes going down TL. Use (2), (3) and (4) to see if you can come up with some nice "realistic enough" factor.

(5) Scale up in TL improvements from (3), adding extra weight/volume when a new weapon type first becomes available (e.g., lasers, gauss, etc.) For such weapons, ammo weight/volume resides mostly in power packs, if the weapon has a benifit I would scale the power requirements so the "ammo weight/volume" for the game balance/world you are looking for. Higher vlaues might mean chemical projectile weapons still find widespread use. Of course cost can be used to adjust availablity as well.

(5b) Rounds for gauss ammo can be readily defined since they are typically without casings and a needle of metal. Find density of metal, determine size and calculate weight, or the reverse.

(6) Linearly scale up this power generated per volume to starship scales and see if it matches the starship design system of choice. If not, consider whether: (a) the power source is the same, fusion, batteries etc., but realize if your weapon batteries generate 1000x the power per volume as a fusion drive why are they not used in starships; (b) the power source scales non-linearly and/or there is a minimum fixed volume for some basic components (e.g., fusion plant radiation shielding, containment "vessle" thickness).

(7) Linearly scale down your power source to wrist watch size. How much energy does it have? For example, how many pounds of TNT in energy do you have,just to get an idea if you've created a super-weapon. Compare to a satchel charge for a qualititative feel. Consider non-linear scaling to address any issues.

Just my 7 1/2 step program to quick and dirty weapon design with calibration to TL 4-8.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Fritz88:

What say you all concerning this non-existent volume data?

For Ammo
(1) Get a hold of some density data for the component, e.g., a round of ammo, and/or wing it based off of materials. Back calculate volume, and multiply by a fudge/waste space factor (e.g., 1.1 to 1.25) to account for imperfect packing and the magazine itself.

(2) Get some data for real world firearm ammo, should be able to get both density and volume, if nothing else look up the size and volume of a 100 rounds box of 22 ammo, etc. Better yet get a box of 45 ACP ammo measure it. Get a hold of an actual magazine and measure the volume. Use this for a reality check, correction factor.

(3) Do the same as (2) for whatever data one can find on caseless ammo, trying to find ammo with same ballistic performance as standard, just no case. Use this to gauge the size/weight reductions that might occur with a 1 TL increase in ammo technology.

(4) If feeling the system design bug continue . Do the sames as (2) for black powder firearms. Now you have data points for the size/weight changes going down TL. Use (2), (3) and (4) to see if you can come up with some nice "realistic enough" factor.

(5) Scale up in TL improvements from (3), adding extra weight/volume when a new weapon type first becomes available (e.g., lasers, gauss, etc.) For such weapons, ammo weight/volume resides mostly in power packs, if the weapon has a benifit I would scale the power requirements so the "ammo weight/volume" for the game balance/world you are looking for. Higher vlaues might mean chemical projectile weapons still find widespread use. Of course cost can be used to adjust availablity as well.

(5b) Rounds for gauss ammo can be readily defined since they are typically without casings and a needle of metal. Find density of metal, determine size and calculate weight, or the reverse.

(6) Linearly scale up this power generated per volume to starship scales and see if it matches the starship design system of choice. If not, consider whether: (a) the power source is the same, fusion, batteries etc., but realize if your weapon batteries generate 1000x the power per volume as a fusion drive why are they not used in starships; (b) the power source scales non-linearly and/or there is a minimum fixed volume for some basic components (e.g., fusion plant radiation shielding, containment "vessle" thickness).

(7) Linearly scale down your power source to wrist watch size. How much energy does it have? For example, how many pounds of TNT in energy do you have,just to get an idea if you've created a super-weapon. Compare to a satchel charge for a qualititative feel. Consider non-linear scaling to address any issues.

Just my 7 1/2 step program to quick and dirty weapon design with calibration to TL 4-8.

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by far-trader:
... It's a game, apply a little fun and sense and the "rules" work well enough

[/QB]

YEA! Let's play and not waste so much time on details.

All Right, I know that some of us, maybe even lots of us are playing when we fuss and fume with the details. However they are the details we want to fuss and fume over, not the ones our jobs require us fuss and fume over. So do what makes you happy. If you feel the need to get technical, work out the details you think correct the problem and post them in the related forum. You will find someone will either applaude your work or lambast it, maybe both.

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by far-trader:
... It's a game, apply a little fun and sense and the "rules" work well enough

[/QB]

YEA! Let's play and not waste so much time on details.

All Right, I know that some of us, maybe even lots of us are playing when we fuss and fume with the details. However they are the details we want to fuss and fume over, not the ones our jobs require us fuss and fume over. So do what makes you happy. If you feel the need to get technical, work out the details you think correct the problem and post them in the related forum. You will find someone will either applaude your work or lambast it, maybe both.

 

[far-trader]

Yes, I guess I was looking at only one side of the question. I mean we are talking CT here, not FF&S1.

I do see that to get good designs and rules there is a need for a level of detail that isn't needed in the final play rules.

 

[far-trader]

Yes, I guess I was looking at only one side of the question. I mean we are talking CT here, not FF&S1.

I do see that to get good designs and rules there is a need for a level of detail that isn't needed in the final play rules.

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) According to Book 8, a robot could sustain VOLUME/5 hits before being disables, and VOLUME/2 hitsbefore being destroyed.

Is this Chassis Volume only? From what I understand from Book8, word for word, the hit points calculated ONLY comes from the chassis volume.

I know for a fact that my robots I've designed from LBB8 not only have chassis, but they also have "Heads", which itself is an additional volume and weight. Should those additional parts also contribute to "Total Volume", and thus contribute to extra hit points?

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) According to Book 8, a robot could sustain VOLUME/5 hits before being disables, and VOLUME/2 hitsbefore being destroyed.

Is this Chassis Volume only? From what I understand from Book8, word for word, the hit points calculated ONLY comes from the chassis volume.

I know for a fact that my robots I've designed from LBB8 not only have chassis, but they also have "Heads", which itself is an additional volume and weight. Should those additional parts also contribute to "Total Volume", and thus contribute to extra hit points?

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Yes, I guess I was looking at only one side of the question. I mean we are talking CT here, not FF&S1.

I do see that to get good designs and rules there is a need for a level of detail that isn't needed in the final play rules.

Couldn't agree more. All that "simple" work in my 7 1/2 step program is just to get down to one good data point and some ideas for a TL scale factor. Soemthing as simple as:
ammo volume = base x TL modifier.

But that is off topic from robots.

For robots I'd propose staring with stats for a human sized robot, i.e. assume the volume and then set performance for that volume. Once a good data point is set, expand from there.

For example, Asimov is about human sized and can provide a basis for weight, strength, dexterity and power requirements, etc. at our TL. Then I'd pick a TL where you'd like the performance of a human sized robot to equal the physical performance of a human, TL 10-11 IMTU. Then back calculate from there to get design tables.
Scale up and down from these two data points. Also can scale other materials to the base materials of a plastic/metal type robot.

A little clunky but you'll know your system gives a realistic TL8 robot and you'll know what TL IYTU you can get a human duplicate.

Off the top of my head a simplistic leg example:

Transmission Legs
TL..Volume(L)..Power Vol.............Performance
8....9.........3/4 human torso vol....Dex 4, 1 mph walk, no run
11...9.........1/2 human torso vol....Dex 7, 3.5 mph walk, run 20 mph (limited duration)

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Yes, I guess I was looking at only one side of the question. I mean we are talking CT here, not FF&S1.

I do see that to get good designs and rules there is a need for a level of detail that isn't needed in the final play rules.

Couldn't agree more. All that "simple" work in my 7 1/2 step program is just to get down to one good data point and some ideas for a TL scale factor. Soemthing as simple as:
ammo volume = base x TL modifier.

But that is off topic from robots.

For robots I'd propose staring with stats for a human sized robot, i.e. assume the volume and then set performance for that volume. Once a good data point is set, expand from there.

For example, Asimov is about human sized and can provide a basis for weight, strength, dexterity and power requirements, etc. at our TL. Then I'd pick a TL where you'd like the performance of a human sized robot to equal the physical performance of a human, TL 10-11 IMTU. Then back calculate from there to get design tables.
Scale up and down from these two data points. Also can scale other materials to the base materials of a plastic/metal type robot.

A little clunky but you'll know your system gives a realistic TL8 robot and you'll know what TL IYTU you can get a human duplicate.

Off the top of my head a simplistic leg example:

Transmission Legs
TL..Volume(L)..Power Vol.............Performance
8....9.........3/4 human torso vol....Dex 4, 1 mph walk, no run
11...9.........1/2 human torso vol....Dex 7, 3.5 mph walk, run 20 mph (limited duration)

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) According to Book 8, a robot could sustain VOLUME/5 hits before being disables, and VOLUME/2 hitsbefore being destroyed.

Is this Chassis Volume only? From what I understand from Book8, word for word, the hit points calculated ONLY comes from the chassis volume.

I know for a fact that my robots I've designed from LBB8 not only have chassis, but they also have "Heads", which itself is an additional volume and weight. Should those additional parts also contribute to "Total Volume", and thus contribute to extra hit points? </font>[/QUOTE]When I re-read the LBB8 combat rules after posting this question I hit my forehead; I missed the hit-location (and thus, non-hit-point damage) rules entirely in my first pass.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) According to Book 8, a robot could sustain VOLUME/5 hits before being disables, and VOLUME/2 hitsbefore being destroyed.

Is this Chassis Volume only? From what I understand from Book8, word for word, the hit points calculated ONLY comes from the chassis volume.

I know for a fact that my robots I've designed from LBB8 not only have chassis, but they also have "Heads", which itself is an additional volume and weight. Should those additional parts also contribute to "Total Volume", and thus contribute to extra hit points? </font>[/QUOTE]When I re-read the LBB8 combat rules after posting this question I hit my forehead; I missed the hit-location (and thus, non-hit-point damage) rules entirely in my first pass.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Ptah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Yes, I guess I was looking at only one side of the question. I mean we are talking CT here, not FF&S1.

I do see that to get good designs and rules there is a need for a level of detail that isn't needed in the final play rules.

Couldn't agree more. All that "simple" work in my 7 1/2 step program is just to get down to one good data point and some ideas for a TL scale factor. Soemthing as simple as:
ammo volume = base x TL modifier.
</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly;what we need is a simple and elegant "component" (LBB2-style) system, where the base chassis is selected from a list, a power plant/locomotion (combo?) dropped in, and the rest of the components added in a one-by-one basis, probably with a relatively low amount of additional data (i.e. no power allocation for most sensors/devices?). The system should be close enough to realistic to keep suspension of disbelief, yet abstract enough to fit most situations without ocver-encumbring ourselves with too many rules. Sure, designing things with Striker is fun, but it takes ALOT of time...

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Ptah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Yes, I guess I was looking at only one side of the question. I mean we are talking CT here, not FF&S1.

I do see that to get good designs and rules there is a need for a level of detail that isn't needed in the final play rules.

Couldn't agree more. All that "simple" work in my 7 1/2 step program is just to get down to one good data point and some ideas for a TL scale factor. Soemthing as simple as:
ammo volume = base x TL modifier.
</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly;what we need is a simple and elegant "component" (LBB2-style) system, where the base chassis is selected from a list, a power plant/locomotion (combo?) dropped in, and the rest of the components added in a one-by-one basis, probably with a relatively low amount of additional data (i.e. no power allocation for most sensors/devices?). The system should be close enough to realistic to keep suspension of disbelief, yet abstract enough to fit most situations without ocver-encumbring ourselves with too many rules. Sure, designing things with Striker is fun, but it takes ALOT of time...

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Exactly;what we need is a simple and elegant "component" (LBB2-style) system, where the base chassis is selected from a list, a power plant/locomotion (combo?) dropped in, and the rest of the components added in a one-by-one basis, probably with a relatively low amount of additional data (i.e. no power allocation for most sensors/devices?). The system should be close enough to realistic to keep suspension of disbelief, yet abstract enough to fit most situations without ocver-encumbring ourselves with too many rules. Sure, designing things with Striker is fun, but it takes ALOT of time...

That's my thinking, although I like the LBB5-style.

Off the top of my head here at work, with tangental thoughts built in, on a design sequence that might flow (I want to avoid having to recalculate ala Striker if you add a turret.)

"Sequence"
In some cases locomotion size is most important start design there. In others the package carried is most important, start there and then figure out how much locmotion you need to carry the mass. In some cases the guy doesn't move so ignore locomotion.

(1) Locomotion: (a)determines mass can carry, (b)build in power/fuel requirements assume base duration for activity, (c) effective dex and type determines max. volume, as a multiple of locomotion volume, it can carry before it can't balance, (d) performance stats besides mass are Dex. and speed (break biped legs that can run out into separate group from walkers) A more general system provides (a) mass lifted to volume of drive ratio (basically power to weight ratio refigured in relevant design parameters).

After adding on all the components, extra mass carrying capacity can be used to carry things.

(2) "Tool": This is the thing the robot uses to do whatever it is it does. The three broad categories are Manipulators, Sensors and Cargo.

(2a) Manipluators: (a)by type determines activity (b) performance stats: dex (e.g., flexibility, number of joints) strength (e.g., lift); (c) volume to performance number, e.g. performance number is STR + STR + DEX (Cost might be STR + DEX +DEX); (d) mass is a base number for a given TL, can decrease by using lighter more exspensive materials to a point; (e) power built into volume. Simple sensors such as position, acceleromters etc. needed to work manipulator assumed built in.

(2b) Sensors: Like for maipulators, power requirements built in to volume/mass.

(2c) Weapons: build into a manipulator and use 90% of volume weight of non-robotic vrsion to reflect integration.

(3) Cargo: Basically a chassis/body with mass for an open volume of a given type. Things like seats etc. are fittings that can be added in.

(4) Brains:
(4a) Simple radio etc. the robot has only limited local processing (assumed built into components)
(4b) More complex: stat as wish but a component that is ameable to fixed size components. Some basic brains can be assumed to be built in but they factor into cost.

(5) Power plant. Not explicit, it is built into the components. Thus, no back re-calculations where you see, oops not enough power, you up power plant and think sh*t now its too big...etc.
Power plant type is chosen for the component based on TL. A more refined component chart would list components and assumed power source. For example, legs (battery powered); legs (fuel cell powered), legs (extension cord), would have three different component rows for each leg-power type.
A fancy version would list the fraction of a given component that is assumed to be power plant/fuel. Then all these volumes could be summed to give a power plant volume and weight. At this stage you might switch out the power plant for a better one.
Then you can add more stuff. I think this is a better interative process because as you add and switch you are monotonically approaching max build out, not oscillating as can happen in a Striker design sequence.

(5b) Auxilary Power. Power plant tables so you can add a back up, more power, do the switch out etc.

This process of course glosses over things like your legs may work better with more power etc, or still work with less power but with lower performance.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Exactly;what we need is a simple and elegant "component" (LBB2-style) system, where the base chassis is selected from a list, a power plant/locomotion (combo?) dropped in, and the rest of the components added in a one-by-one basis, probably with a relatively low amount of additional data (i.e. no power allocation for most sensors/devices?). The system should be close enough to realistic to keep suspension of disbelief, yet abstract enough to fit most situations without ocver-encumbring ourselves with too many rules. Sure, designing things with Striker is fun, but it takes ALOT of time...

That's my thinking, although I like the LBB5-style.

Off the top of my head here at work, with tangental thoughts built in, on a design sequence that might flow (I want to avoid having to recalculate ala Striker if you add a turret.)

"Sequence"
In some cases locomotion size is most important start design there. In others the package carried is most important, start there and then figure out how much locmotion you need to carry the mass. In some cases the guy doesn't move so ignore locomotion.

(1) Locomotion: (a)determines mass can carry, (b)build in power/fuel requirements assume base duration for activity, (c) effective dex and type determines max. volume, as a multiple of locomotion volume, it can carry before it can't balance, (d) performance stats besides mass are Dex. and speed (break biped legs that can run out into separate group from walkers) A more general system provides (a) mass lifted to volume of drive ratio (basically power to weight ratio refigured in relevant design parameters).

After adding on all the components, extra mass carrying capacity can be used to carry things.

(2) "Tool": This is the thing the robot uses to do whatever it is it does. The three broad categories are Manipulators, Sensors and Cargo.

(2a) Manipluators: (a)by type determines activity (b) performance stats: dex (e.g., flexibility, number of joints) strength (e.g., lift); (c) volume to performance number, e.g. performance number is STR + STR + DEX (Cost might be STR + DEX +DEX); (d) mass is a base number for a given TL, can decrease by using lighter more exspensive materials to a point; (e) power built into volume. Simple sensors such as position, acceleromters etc. needed to work manipulator assumed built in.

(2b) Sensors: Like for maipulators, power requirements built in to volume/mass.

(2c) Weapons: build into a manipulator and use 90% of volume weight of non-robotic vrsion to reflect integration.

(3) Cargo: Basically a chassis/body with mass for an open volume of a given type. Things like seats etc. are fittings that can be added in.

(4) Brains:
(4a) Simple radio etc. the robot has only limited local processing (assumed built into components)
(4b) More complex: stat as wish but a component that is ameable to fixed size components. Some basic brains can be assumed to be built in but they factor into cost.

(5) Power plant. Not explicit, it is built into the components. Thus, no back re-calculations where you see, oops not enough power, you up power plant and think sh*t now its too big...etc.
Power plant type is chosen for the component based on TL. A more refined component chart would list components and assumed power source. For example, legs (battery powered); legs (fuel cell powered), legs (extension cord), would have three different component rows for each leg-power type.
A fancy version would list the fraction of a given component that is assumed to be power plant/fuel. Then all these volumes could be summed to give a power plant volume and weight. At this stage you might switch out the power plant for a better one.
Then you can add more stuff. I think this is a better interative process because as you add and switch you are monotonically approaching max build out, not oscillating as can happen in a Striker design sequence.

(5b) Auxilary Power. Power plant tables so you can add a back up, more power, do the switch out etc.

This process of course glosses over things like your legs may work better with more power etc, or still work with less power but with lower performance.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Yes, Maladominus, the book says "chassis hits". If you put the brain in your head, you might want to take that into account (that's not where MY robots' brains are!)

far-trader, I don't mind some simple abstraction. What I mind is when the idea of density is so far off as to be laughable. I mean composite materials are double the density of water! By the book assumption, my robot loaded with a fusion plant and 100kg of tools should float (neutral bouyancy, anyway)!

I was thinking along the lines of Ptah: some number other than 1, modified slightly by TL (even TL15 hammers can only be so small....) and "thing". Which would be easiest to implement by just tossing a reasonable volume column into the LBB8 tables, and allowing for some TL variation.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Yes, Maladominus, the book says "chassis hits". If you put the brain in your head, you might want to take that into account (that's not where MY robots' brains are!)

far-trader, I don't mind some simple abstraction. What I mind is when the idea of density is so far off as to be laughable. I mean composite materials are double the density of water! By the book assumption, my robot loaded with a fusion plant and 100kg of tools should float (neutral bouyancy, anyway)!

I was thinking along the lines of Ptah: some number other than 1, modified slightly by TL (even TL15 hammers can only be so small....) and "thing". Which would be easiest to implement by just tossing a reasonable volume column into the LBB8 tables, and allowing for some TL variation.