Sensor question(s)

[gchuck]

I think there was a thread, but, unable to find.

So, the question(s).

What's the consensus on upgrading a civilian ships sensors to 'military/scout' grade sensors? 50% of Bridge cost? 20%?

Available space is an obvious issue which I intend to base on the ships overall tonnage.

Bk 2 says the bridge controls the 'electronics' of the ship, ie. the controls are there, and the sensors are part of bridge complex.

Bk 5 really doesn't say anything about sensors that I could find.

Thx in advance.

 

[mike wightman]

This is one of those rules oversights that has been there from the beginning and has never really been addressed.

There is no tonnage or cost difference between a military/paramilitary ship and a civilian ship in the LBB2 rules, you just decide it is a military design.

There is no cost difference and yet the military designation is enough to give you rugged drives more resistant to unrefined fuel and longer ranged sensors.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

We can use the Refit rules from TCS.

Refitting involves the complete removal of an old system and the installation of a new one; for instance, if a power plant is refitted, the entire power plant is removed and a new one put in its place. Refitting takes up shipyard capacity equal to the refitting ship's tonnage.
Changes in power plant, maneuver drive, or jump drive are major changes.
...
Changes in any other ship component are minor changes. They cost 1.1 times the cost of the system in a new ship and take one tenth the time required for new ship construction.

Basically you would have to pull the entire Bridge, and install a new "Scout" Bridge at 110% of normal cost, e.g. MCr 1.1 for a Free Trader.

A lot cheaper than a new turret...

 

[mike wightman]

That's an interesting way to do it - but why do military bridges with better sensors and military drives that can use unrefined fuel at no penalty not cost more in the first place?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

LBB2 is an extremely simple system.

There is no major difference between a regular Bridge and a "Scout" Bridge component. Both are the same size and cost.

Perhaps the difference is TL? Something like a regular Bridge is TL about TL 11 and a "Scout" bridge is about TL 14?

 

[Grav_Moped]

There is also no distinction in HG between military and civilian sensors (to the extent that the matter is covered at all, it's all in the computer factor).

TL differences could be a reasonable house rule, but don't explain how a ship built at TL 9 can have TL 14 (or whatever) components even without a TL 14 source world within its polity. It also doesn't explain why every ship built at TL 14 (again, or whatever TL) doesn't have the better sensors.

That's an interesting way to do it - but why do military bridges with better sensors and military drives that can use unrefined fuel at no penalty not cost more in the first place?

It seems to me to have been intentionally left to referee fiat. If better sensors and hardened drives had a price (and perhaps TL) assigned, players would undoubtedly always opt for them since they'd be a trivial fraction of the cost of a starship. Then again, so would everyone else, and the distinction would become moot. So, it's up to the referee to decide whether they're available to player characters for ships that aren't canonically Scout or Military (Scout/Courier, Patrol Cruiser, and Mercenary Cruiser).

The point isn't cost, it's play balance. Sure, they should cost more. But as soon as you put a price on it, it becomes something that can be purchased. Then it's necessary to write rules about who can and can't buy them and for what reasons -- which locks down elements of the setting that might be better left to the referee's imagination, and takes up page space that could be better used for describing some other rule, or for a table.

 

[vegas]

Agreeing with Mike et. al. that it is not addressed, but I think a way to slip in a difference in civ/mil equipment that doesn't do too much violence to the rules and that still makes economic sense (if they are the same price, why doesn't everyone have them?) is to put the difference in maintenance cost.

Like AD, I go to TCS for inspiration; a navy can be purchased for 10% of its cost, because that is the operating costs. Ergo, a mil-spec bridge or drive costs 10% of purchase price in maintenance or 100x the annual maintenance of a comparable civ component.

Why don't mil ships have a stated difference in annual maintenance with civ ships RAW? My hand-waive answer is because they are Mil ships and the cost/budget for ruggedized components is absorbed in someone else's infrastructure & budget, namely base operations. If a civ ship wants the same performance but cannot access the same infrastructure, it has to pay. And probably it has too pay a premium price, since it is buying this premo performance for just 1 ship rather than a fleet.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The point isn't cost, it's play balance. Sure, they should cost more. But as soon as you put a price on it, it becomes something that can be purchased. Then it's necessary to write rules about who can and can't buy them and for what reasons -- which locks down elements of the setting that might be better left to the referee's imagination, and takes up page space that could be better used for describing some other rule, or for a table.

Which is to say, if you're McClellan Factors or Baraccai Technum and you want scout-grade sensors on your Leviathan-class ships, of course you have enough clout to swing it. Likewise if you're a legitimate mercenary company. On the other hand, your average Enri tramping along the Spinward Main in a beat-up Far Trader isn't going to be able to score a surplus Size B Jump Drive from an XBoat unless the referee makes it happen.

 

[vegas]

A ref could make it a legal issue or sourcing issue sure. Or if it is 1.1 cost-adder for the retrofit (hat tip AD) and a 100X increase in maintenance cost for the upgraded system (a la 10% of new annual operating cost) then there is an economic reason why your tramp freighter doesn't want them - they blast a big hole in your starship economic model.

Either way works depending on what outcome the ref wants to encourage.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Like AD, I go to TCS for inspiration; a navy can be purchased for 10% of its cost, because that is the operating costs. Ergo, a mil-spec bridge or drive costs 10% of purchase price in maintenance or 100x the annual maintenance of a comparable civ component.

That does not follow.

The TCS 10% supports the entire naval establishment including ship's operating costs including crew, reserve crew, future crew in training, life support, fuel, consumables (ammo), and somewhere in the margin annual maintenance.

Hence there is no reason to assume mil-spec equipment has vastly higher costs for annual maintenance.

 

[vegas]

If you run the numbers, none of that other stuff - crew, life support, unrefined fuel, consumables, RAW maintenance - amounts to a hill of beans. It wont get you close to 10% of capital cost to operate a warship. So there is a lot of spend that we can call what we want.

Dont like 10% maintenance? Make it 5%. Enough to explain why mil engines and sensors that are otherwise identical to civ have better performance.

Do like 10% maintenance? Go ahead and use it; the civilian is ordering for 1 ship, the military has economies of scale

If course it doesnt "follow" that it has to be this way. This isnt a deduction. Its a way to make the universe make sense given the rules.

 

[kilemall]

For CT I've just gone with the computer model includes the sensors, and have a complex EM wavelength, hull size and ranging matrice that gives the higher tech/high computer model advantages, while using the original civ/military sensor ranges as the baseline result.


Went this way in order to have stealth, cause smuggling and spec ops.


One of the fun side effects I got was figuring that bridge-only small craft don't have long range sensors and are VERY dependent on local traffic control and/or their mothership's sensor suite. Works great cause it highlights their orbital taxi functions rather then separate explorer/independent ops craft.



Similarly, the computer model/no-bridge small craft get sensor fits but have to spend some of it in radio if they want a longer range comm, nothing in the way of integral radio or manual systems/life support controls.


So for a sensor refit I would insist on a computer model redo, along with a new hull, including more power usage if required.



I don't do specialized fiddly antennae/dishes, more ship-length hull arrays, which is why ship size affects sensor performance. Much bigger apertures and thus sensitivity, sensor performance degrades 'gracefully' as the ship takes hits rather then lose them all in one dish shot. They involve sensor clusters spread every few meters or so and requires a complete redo of the hull exterior and associated backend wiring.


The other way to go is to assume the Type S is using a lot of the bridge space for the scout-level sensors. Problem with that is then whatever percentage of that bridge you designate as sensor would be pretty cheap to add to other ships, even 10 tons of bridge is an easy buy for many explorers and 'unregulated packet/distribution specialists'. You'd end up restricting it anyway, so not a separate mechanic worth pursuing.

 

[whartung]

Frankly the difference between a civilian sensor and military one are probably indistinguishable until someone starts jamming or you run in to other hinky electromagnetic environs.

 

[Enoki]

The big difference I see between civilian and military grade equipment is the later is designed to be repaired whereas the civilian stuff is often not so.

An example might be the military sensor or electronic system uses replaceable cards and other components that can be accessed and swapped out by a technician. The civilian stuff, if it breaks you need to buy a new one because half the components are no longer available, or there's no way to take something out and put a new one in without the whole thing still not working because the new one is incompatible with the rest of the old stuff due to the company having updated things and not bothering to let their gazillion customers know that.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Frankly the difference between a civilian sensor and military one are probably indistinguishable until someone starts jamming or you run in to other hinky electromagnetic environs.

Initial detection range with military/scout sensors is 4x greater than for civilian hardware (LBB2:'81, p.32).