Ship building: A plethora of rules.

[sgbrown]

Shouldn't design system should have two tiers? One modular and one for "custom" or "experimental" designs.

This can add depth to the game play (for refs willing to make an issue out of parts availability for that souped up far trader - or even add legal issues - special permits, licensing fees, route restrictions, export restrictions and the like for use of "experimental" design.)

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Gs and dtons have always been a part of Traveller. They have to stay (although we can use m/s^2 and m^3 as well).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, I am a conservative, and would normally agree with tradition like that, Andrew, but....

 

[robject]

Newbee: yes, and that concept represents the best of Traveller's intentions historically (if not its followthrough).

Andrew: I actually agree, and am not convinced that moving away from tons and EPs and G's helps enough.

Though not a gearhead, Ron is 'astronomical' in outlook. He likes to use generic and unambigious terms, and likes settings like those found in 2300AD and TNE, as well as the Spinward Marches in 1105. That's fine, but Traveller is best suited for Traveller.

I understand the appeal, and there is a 'hard sci-fi' feel to m/s/s and m^3 and MW.

Andrew's view is probably the most likely, and Newbee echoed it. There probably will be Gs and EPs and tons at a modular level, and there probably will be m/s/s and MW and m^3 at the technical design level.

I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I have been working on-and-off on some JavaScript that aid in building drives with dual stats -- as a module and as a device.

A module is something that's there on the shelf, ready to plug in. It has ratings by Gs, tons, and EPs.

A device is something that's designed on the lower level, with newtons, m^3, and MW.

By simultaneously creating both stats for one desired drive, the designer has something he can use in a gearhead design, and at the same time present a module to the community.

Here's an example. Say you want a fusion power plant at TL12 that produces 3 EP. Select fusion, select TL12, and enter in "3" for EPs. Enter in a product name, too, for good measure ("Sam/3p") Out comes:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Technical Architecture Device/Module Specification (TADS/TAMS):
KAM Name Type/TL Vol Output Fuel MCr
---- ---------- ------------------------ ----- ------ ------ ------
TADS, , Fusion Device/12 , 84, 750, 42, 12
TAMS, , Fusion Module/12 , 6, 3, 3, 12</pre>[/QUOTE]The first data line is the device stats, in m^3 and MW. The second data line is the module stats, in tons and EPs.

 

[robject]

On the other end are straightforward, very coarse modules that could be created easily.

For example, habitat modules.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Module ID Volume Staterooms MCr
H0 4 1 0.5
H1 20 5 2.5
H2 40 10 5
H3 80 20 10 </pre>[/QUOTE]I thought turret packages might be useful, but they're a bit too atomic. Except for maybe the absolute most common ones:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Volume = 3
Turret Configuration EP MCr
T3-MMM 0 1.3
T1-L 1 1.3
T3-LMS 1 2.2
T3-LLL 3 4.0</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[Scott Martin]

In reply to Robject:

As a "new" forum attendeee and a (very) old traveller player / GM I'd have to say that the FF&S (original) ship design was one of the better ones for customizability / realism. (thus far I'm unimpressed with FF&S - T4)

The summary of this post is "a complex system like FF&S with enough "modular" components to allow non-gearheads to mix and match pieces and get a reasonable level of customization."

Okay, now I'm going to turn the tables on everyone.

What in your opinion would be the best thing for T5 ship construction? Say what you think would be best. Pick a context, assume anything you like about the rules. You choose. Just throw in your opinions.


Imagine this.

I mail you the T5 book that has the shipbuilding rules in it. You crack it open.

You say "oh my dear God!"
"I can't believe they did it!"
"how did they DO that??"
"now THAT's Traveller"

What do you see?

With FF&S I cranked out a pile of generic systems for various tech levels for my game, since it was WAY easier for players to say "we want to upgrade the sensor systems" and be given a set of choices and decide what they were going to remove and how much "upgrade" did they need. As an example:

Are you willing to lose some manuever drive capability when the sensors are on, or sacrifice the captains ready room to convert it into an auxilary reactor room to power the new EMS system? By the way, Option 1 will cost 6 MCr less and be FAR less likely to arouse the suspicions of a customs inspector...

FF&S did give you the flexibility to build "modular" components, but GDW said "here's some standard turrets" and left it at that. To me the most obvious "combat" upgrade was a turret with a built-in MFD. I was a bit peeved that the Zhodani DDE didn't have *any* MFD's and was thus vastly outclassed by the Imperial close escort. Solution? design a standard 3T turret (with X-ray laser) and include an MFD and crewstation. as long as the total input power was less than the original (crappy optical) laser and the volume fit inside the socket, this was an easy switch. Change the turrets, significantly increase the aggravation levels of imperial forces (as they realize that the Zhodani DDE can now actually intercept incoming missiles at more than 3 hex range) and no need to rewrite ANY of the rest of the ship specs. While the loss of a turret would result in the loss of an MFD, if you lost a turret you didn't really need that MFD anymore...

The easy thing for GDW to have done with FF&S (FF&S "lite"?) would have been to have assembled tables of "stock" components. A concrete example would be to list Passive sensors as a unit including the tech-appropriate array, processors etc and allowed players to just add the array instead of calculating all of the sub-components. I'm sure that GDW knows how to build spreadsheets...

This gives the hardcore "tinkers" (like me) access to the deep dark "guts" of the system, "intermediate" designers (who loved High guard) the ability to plug together "mostly" custom ships, and the folks who liked book-2 can pull a "stock" hull off the shelf and modify it appropriately.

Note that it is fairly easy for a referee to build a "Book 2 style" ship design sequence for their players since civilian designs under 5 Ktons will almost never have any constraint on their available surface area (especially if they don't have access to "military" sensors, so no PEMS with more than a 4 hex range...) and the simplification of "1 ton displacement = 10 metric tonnes" makes thrust easy to calculate (is there anyone here who can't run the numbers for 1-6G on a 100T "scout" hull in less than 10 minutes? jump drives are almost as trivial, and most players can figure out how much power their final design needs and plug in an appropriate power plant)

Scott Martin

 

[robject]

Scott, thanks for the input. You highlight some key points that are worth iterating over.

First off, I also prefer FFS over FFS2, but mainly for the formatting. The content seems pretty much the same... except for the cool extras in FFS, and Fusion Plus in FFS2, which has its own problems.

I'll never design anything using FFS or FFS2, but that's my problem. You should be able to crank away if you're able and willing.

I don't suppose you realize that Imperium Games did assemble tables of "stock" components for T4. It was called QSDS -- the Quick Ship Design System. And it was a pain in the ass. Gearheads would never use such animals -- they design from the bare metal. Non-gearheads didn't use it. The components weren't non-gearhead friendly. So I learned a valuable lesson from T4: when one can't think creatively, one just adds complexity for its own sake, and everybody loses.


My target is to bugfix FFS2 so that, given the right inputs, it will produce the Book 2 tables.

 

[mike wightman]

A combination of FF&S and a fixed FF&S2 would contain nearly every option ever written for ship design in Traveller, with the exception of the extreme stellar tech that MT design rules included - that should be corrected in any future edition IMHO.
If I can generate a world with a TL of 20 I want to be able to build its warfleet

Getting back to the point of this post - Oz's drive units idea for CT drives (put in link later) which I used to extend the drive potential table could be a good place to work backward from.

 

[mike wightman]

And welcome aboard Scott

 

[aramis]

Let's not forget T4 had several
FF&S, SSDS, QSDS

TNE had two: BL and FF&S.

In both cases, the results are compatible and differences minor, but they are different...

GT also can be done using GURPS Vehicles directly... if you're crazy enough.

T20 is HG plus some stuff from elsewhere, with new computer rules. To my mind, it is the best of the bunch. Still not quite there, but really close.

 

[ronnyquest]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up, so I will. In modern aircraft design we incorporate a power system (one or more engines, redundent everything for safety) that will not only run every single system we have onboard simultaneously, but that is WAY overpowered in the event we need a bit more juice. This is especially true of multi-engine aircraft.

Now, I have noticed that people in Traveller (and other RPGs) tend to design around the "just enough" principle. For example, some of the designs in Brilliant Lances specifically state stupid things like "cannot run the sensors <or whatever> during liftoff." Huh?

I want all of my instruments during liftoff, thank you very much. Other examples are out there, like cannot run the artificial gravity generator during combat or whatever.

Why are we quibbling over unrealistic designs (since we all seem to want realism in our science fiction) when they don't make sense in the first place? Are we now min-/max-ing our equipment designs, too? It's bad enough with our characters. For shame.

If we want realism, put in the biggest, baddest power plant you can. Sure, it's expensive in a lot of ways other than cost, but owning a starship is not the single most important thing in Traveller. In real life, most people who know how to fly do not own airplanes. I certainly do not own a plane.

If I were in the market, would I consider a design that makes me turn off the lights during takeoff? Certainly not. Yet, our characters seem oblivious to this and jet around the stars in underpowered starships, doing stupid things like turning off the radios when engaged in combat because the powerplant was underspec'd.

That's one point for the original (LBB 2) Traveller ship design system: we selected a powerplant which gave us enough power for the maneuver and jump ratings we wanted in our ship and it powered all of our other systems, period.

I think of the A2 in Traveller as the Douglass DC-3 of its age. It is tough. It features decent cargo capacity coupled with decent range. It can be configured in a variety of ways depending on its job. No greater accolade for the DC-3 exists than the fact that over six decades after its first flight more than 400 remain in commercial service worldwide. Durability, longevity, and profitability are but three of this outstanding aircraft's virtues. In short, good design.

It's not that I am not a gearhead. I simply do not like current design systems and the designs people are producing with same.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, Ron, I think aircraft may be a bad example. For the most part, commercial aircraft have that level of overpowering because jet engines can produce massive amounts of electrical power for the amount of thrust they produce. The issue should be, would you put a jet engine in a minivan (I'm not saying you wouldn't want to) because it would provide plenty of power to run your entertainment system? No, because it wouldn't (for most people) be worth the return. Small aircraft (like Cessna 142s) don't actually have the electricity to run demanding systems during flight. Heck, we even managed to kill the occasional system in the KC-135R (a 707 with BIG engines) because of power issues.

There is (or should be) a certain amount of scraping by involved in Traveller ships. And, since they decided to go with the electrically-powered, reactionless thrust, unrelated to mass paradigm, you are stuck with losing some manueverability when you are popping your popcorn.

If you see all other power requirements as minimal (like a radio, dash lights, and electric sunroof), then we can consider that concept. But, if you think that decent 10Tm sensors and GW lasers are going to dim a small city, then you're stuck with min/maxing a ship for non-military/megacorp ships (i.e., the ones an independent can afford).

IMHO, of course.

 

[robject]

On the other hand, that can work in favor of a better design system. It decouples the need to fiddle around with the power plant.

This tendency to min/max a design began with High Guard, when a little min/max-ing found the optimal designs, and then the system wasn't really all that "fun" anymore. But HG2 still had some of that "you can't have it all" mentality that min/max-ing largely ignores.

The point of HG1 was more along the lines of specialization, rather than optimization. You had to decide whether your ship was fast, or durable, or had long legs, or packed a wallop. But you could only pick one or two.

Maybe we need to re-learn that. Step One of all our SDS's is "determine mission". Maybe we need to put the teeth back into that statement.


In fact, ruling that gravitics required as much fuel as HEPlaR would help put the teeth back into specialization.

Speculation

Jump: 10% hv fuel per parsec

Lifters: using lifters to land/launch a ship requires 1% hv fuel x world size digit.

Thruster plates: requires 1% hv fuel per G-hour used. If used to land, must be used with wings, and the ship takes S hours to land, where S is the world size digit.

Armor: bought in 10% hv increments (none of this pansy 1% stuff!)

Spinal weapons: take 10% hv, minimum ship volume required.

Bay weapons may be the same as HG's...

Match up the power plant, Book 2 style: it has to be rated the same as the highest-rated component from the above.

Example

The Sharakkannik, a Type A free trader, decides to land on Ruie, a size 8 world.

Holy crap, it needs sixteen tons of fuel just to land! And it needs another sixteen tons to liftoff... I mean, that'll break your back.

And what does this ship look like?

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">20t Bridge
10t Jump drive A
20t Jump fuel
2t Maneuver A
25t Maneuver fuel (?)
4t Power plant A
2t Power fuel
32t Staterooms
85t Cargo</pre>[/QUOTE]Well, that's not so bad. Trim the bridge by 10t if you need a little more wiggle room.

How about a Fat Trader?

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 20t Bridge
15t Jump drive B
40t Jump fuel
4t Maneuver B
50t Maneuver fuel
8t Power plant B
4t Power fuel
80t Staterooms
179t Cargo</pre>[/QUOTE]I must be missing something. That doesn't seem very bad at all.

How about a system defense boat, then?
Well, now I have to decide how many G-hours of thrust it should have. 40 G-hours would require 160 tons, and would permit a full-burn with-deceleration range of 0.3 AU.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 20t Bridge
16t Maneuver G
160t Maneuver fuel
80t Armor factor 2
40t Weapons batteries
80t Staterooms
4t Cargo</pre>[/QUOTE]Does 40t of weapons sound like "enough"?
Assuming a 3t turret can form a factor 1 battery, and factors have exponential requirements, then 40t could fill out one factor 5 battery and one factor 3 battery.

 

[ronnyquest]

As in all technology projects, the first question has to be "what are you trying to accomplish?" Then we design the systems accordingly. hat we have are bad systems within which to create. So far, I have seen no really workable alternative that will satisfy everyone's desire for complexity. I still favor a less realistic, less gearheady design system. Give them some statistics and get on with playing the game.


We're not talking about Cessna aircraft, though. These are not small craft we're talking about. These are ships that can travel relatively quickly between points in a star system and between the stars, themselves. There's a book title in there somewhere.

However, aircraft probably were a bad example. Starships and spacecraft are more akin to submarines than aircraft in many respects.

The problems still remain, however. In the air, no power and we have some serious decisions to make. Under water, no power and we have some serious decisions to make; probably fatal in any case. In space, no power and we will die.

 

[mike wightman]

Yup, I'm in complete agreement with Ron here.

Decide what the rules have to do - put another way - decide on your combat system and so on first.

Will it be a wargame with character's skills tacked on the end replacing the usual crew quality or unit status that you often get in wargames.
Or will it be designed from the "what do I want the player characters to be doing during combat" perspective.

If you decide that one of the roles of the engineer is to run the power plant hot to provide more emergency power to weapons or drives then your ship design rules need to incorporate that possibility.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Aramis:
T20 is HG plus some stuff from elsewhere, with new computer rules. To my mind, it is the best of the bunch. Still not quite there, but really close.

It's ok, but there are some issues
First, the matter of small craft needing a bridge and a computer - with no provision for a model-0 computer.
Second, the reduction in power plant size allows for more armour on large ships than in High Guard at a similar TL.
Third, and my biggest gripe, why can't you have a particle spinal mount, bay weapons, and barbettes all on the same ship?

Now I know the answer to the last one will be "compatibilty with High Guard" - but the other two points already show that there are compatibility issues - not to mention being able to upgrade streamling and the changes to computers
MT etc. allow for the same weapon system in all the different mounts, and there's nothing to stop the T20 format from doing the same.
Even the HG USP system only needs a minor revision to allow it.

I really like the role playing element to ship combat that T20 has introduced, but the actual combat system mechanics needs some refining IMHO - especially for large ships.

 

[ronnyquest]

The basic premise for movement in designing our ships has to be the amount of thrust our engines provide and the mass of the load to be moved (the ship, including drives). This is regardless of the system.

We can fudge it. It does not have to be "realistic." After all, we suspend disbelief in jump drives, thruster plates, and anti-gravity.

But it really boils down to "is Traveller a roleplaying game or a tabletop wargame?" Our ships will then be defined in those terms. The obvious answer, which keeps stirring up issues, is that it is both. Therein lies the rub.

This is probably a case where we need to think inside the box to deliver what is needed to play the game.

 

[Jame]

My main complaint with Book 2 is the size and expense of the drives (I always assumed that under Book 2, the 1 ton fire control was the MFD for that turret.), as well as the fact that I can't build a 5000 ton ship at TL 9 that can do only jump 1, and the same size at TL 15 being able to do jump 6 (though it might not be a good idea).

High Guard fixed this problem, but stuck me with another: the "factor" of weapons. I always felt that Book 2 had the right of it here, since it said that any given turret did X. I rather like High Guard's limiting of Jump range by TL instead of by engine.

I can't make heads or tails of MT's rules on the issue, I haven't ever seen FF&S, and T4's rules were missing tables and took too much from MT (I want tons, not volume!). GURPS rules have just about the same useability as MT, and for much the same reasons.

Computers are my other shipbuilding thing - for once, GURPS seems to have the right of it, but (1) it's GURPS, so taking it would probably violate some copyright, and (2) it isn't Traveller, and I'm not interested in figuring out converting.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

One thing you mustn't do is change the way things work. TNE pissed off a huge number of people by dumping thrusters in favour of HEPLAR and changing the jump fuel requirements.

 

[mike wightman]

The jump fuel requirement was a hold over from MT.
And I agree with the HEPlaR comment

I like the way T4 tryed to reconcile things by making MTs reactionless thrusters higher tech, while HEPlaR is lower tech.

I still think that what many people miss about the Third Imperium is that the knowledge base is TL15, hence some things may be possible with hindsight at lower TLs, such as nulgrav modules at TL8 etc.

Thus the worlds of TNE lacked the TL15 infrastructure, and trade, to import the bits that would allow building a thruster at TL12. So they were stuck with HEPlaR until they advanced their tech base.