Ship Design Philosophies

[tenntrav]

I don't think the spinal mounts are subtracting from the total available hard point as they should.

tenntrav

 

[Gaming Glen]

Suggestion: Use the Data, Validation, Allow: List, then add in the Source options for selecting some of the options. Such as Starship? yes or no. When you select a cell with options it places a little arrow to the cell's right to click on to get the list of options. This will cut down on some cell usage, and looks cleaner with "Yes" or "No" instead of 1 or 0.

But thanks for what you've done so far!


Glen


P.S. caught something else: the 100-ton override for the particle accelerator bay (a candidate for the above suggestion) seems to be the opposite, 0 = 100 ton bay, 1 - 50 ton bay. I haven't checked the meson gun yet.

 

[Gaming Glen]

Oh, playing with the spreadsheet reminded me of a question.

Is Agility based on the EP going to the Maneuver Drive, or does it have to go beyond that? What I mean, the EP for a Man drive is required before figuring for agility?


Glen


P.S. the Meson Gun bays are backwards, too.

 

[Falkayn]

Thank you to everyone for the feedback! As soon as I get a chance to spend a chunk of time on the spreadsheet I'll get these fixes posted up on the website.

Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
Is Agility based on the EP going to the Maneuver Drive, or does it have to go beyond that? What I mean, the EP for a Man drive is required before figuring for agility?

Agility is figured out from the excess EP once your current needs are met - as you only ever need Jump or Maneuver drive running, I take the largest of those away (or is it just the Jump drive I ignore, hmmm...). IIRC the rules for this are in the starship section where it talks about completing a design (ie. at the end).

 

[Gaming Glen]

I do have an issue with the auto airlock when it comes to small craft. I was designing a 15 ton fighter and found that silly, yes silly, 3 ton airlock was getting in my way to make things fit. Some small craft (i.e., fighters), even large ones (very rare), may not have or need an airlock.


Suggestion: have the "free" airlock automatically when the "Bridge?" option is yes, and no airlock with no bridge. Then have an option to enable or disable the "free" airlock. Alternatively, when they put in a number of airlock(s) then the first one is free of cost. You could set the default to 1 airlock, and those who want to remove it can do so.

Another suggestion (which I wanted for the above "short-duration" fighter): if the fuel for the power plant is less than a week then convert it to days. Oh, and ROUND (DOWN?) the number to 2 or 3 decimal places. I had a 3.6666666667 one time. Another idea: off to the right you could have an option to auto figure the fuel for a 4 week duration (and similarly for the jump fuel) so when one changes the size of the ship or plant one does not have to change those, also.

One of the Sensors description overwrote the next column. You could merge those two columns. Comms description might need the same.

No so much directed at your spreadsheet but at T20 in general: No bunks? My alien ship in my campaign is somewhat based of the droyne, which like living in groups of 6 (family), so I had put in my deck plans several 6-bed rooms that shared a "fresher". I just allocated 3 small staterooms of double occupancy so it was no big deal but thought I'd mention it.


Glen

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
I do have an issue with the auto airlock when it comes to small craft. I was designing a 15 ton fighter and found that silly, yes silly, 3 ton airlock was getting in my way to make things fit. Some small craft (i.e., fighters), even large ones (very rare), may not have or need an airlock.

Suggestion: have the "free" airlock automatically when the "Bridge?" option is yes, and no airlock with no bridge. Then have an option to enable or disable the "free" airlock. Alternatively, when they put in a number of airlock(s) then the first one is free of cost. You could set the default to 1 airlock, and those who want to remove it can do so.

Another suggestion (which I wanted for the above "short-duration" fighter): if the fuel for the power plant is less than a week then convert it to days. Oh, and ROUND (DOWN?) the number to 2 or 3 decimal places. I had a 3.6666666667 one time. Another idea: off to the right you could have an option to auto figure the fuel for a 4 week duration (and similarly for the jump fuel) so when one changes the size of the ship or plant one does not have to change those, also.

One of the Sensors description overwrote the next column. You could merge those two columns. Comms description might need the same.

No so much directed at your spreadsheet but at T20 in general: No bunks? My alien ship in my campaign is somewhat based of the droyne, which like living in groups of 6 (family), so I had put in my deck plans several 6-bed rooms that shared a "fresher". I just allocated 3 small staterooms of double occupancy so it was no big deal but thought I'd mention it.

Glen

Put -1 in the Airlock space and you'll be able to create a design with no airlock. I make short-range/duration fighters with this option all the time (it's usually one of the items put back in when the fighter is redesigned at a higher TL).

I take your point about rounding, good idea. The auto-figuring of Jump/PP fuel is already done, that's the cell above the Jump/PP fuel area.

With the sensors/comms descriptions the problem may be the HTML (it gets rid of the extra spaces which make he RTF look good). I will include that on my list of things to check.

In terms of bunks and other unspecified items ... the T20 rules pretty much make the assumption that you tweak the extra space how you like (but pay stateroom type costs). I'm sure a TA will come out eventually with some extra starship design components.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by tenntrav:
Also, check out the service and ship's troops functions in the capital crew. For a 17,500dT cruiser, I'm getting 105 ship's troops and 36 service crew. It might be the other way around, but 105 troops is too high.

tenntrav

The THB p.277 mentions that the number of Ship's Troops can vary from 3/100 tons to 3/1000 tons. The spreadsheet goes for 3/500 tons. The real point is that you can have as many or as few as you'd like. There is no hard and fast rules for them.

The number of service crew is reduced when you have Ship's Troops (which I assume an armed capital ship will). The required number in this case is 2/1000 tons = 35. The spreadsheet rounds this so that in the case of sub 1000 ton amounts you end up with a need for 2 service crew.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by tenntrav:
I don't think the spinal mounts are subtracting from the total available hard point as they should.

tenntrav

The Hardpoints Lost cell shows the hardpoints that are lost due to the use of Bay Weapons or Spinal Mounts (they don't use hardpoints, they simply make you lose potential ones). The system shows you this number but does not try to warn you if you exceed it.

I'll add a comment in the next version.

 

[Falkayn]

A new version of the starship design spreadsheet is up on my Traveller Downloads page, along with several excellent designs from Forged (Alvin Pollard).

 

[Richard Saunders]

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Falkayn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tom Schoene:
Falkayn:

Very handy. I've been playing with this for a few days and found a couple of things that probably need fixing

1) Meson Screen power use. The number in the table needs to be multimplied by (0.01 * displacement) to get the total power requirement. This is an easy fix.

2) There's no way to specify larger batteries of turret weapons. That mneans the gunners required nmumber is usually too high. This one isn't so easy a fix.

3) I believe that the first airlock is included in the bridge displacement, so it should not eat up 3 tons worth of otherwise usable space. This is of course a topic of some debate.

Tom, thanks for the feedback!

1) Good spot, I'd seen that once before, but forgot to add it into the calcs, I'll update the spreadsheet.

2) You're right, there is no easy way to do this, particularly if you want to mix battery sizes. I decided to KISS it and have the recommended crew size specify the max number of gunners - feel free to put less (or more). That whole crew area works a bit like that...

3) I can see the point, but for the moment I am erring on the side of it being extra. If I'm wrong then my ship designs can all spend an extra 3 tons on something else!

Cheers, </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about first message still trying to work out how this works.

I have assumed that the 3 tons of airlock on the bridge was the security door, you realy dont want the vacumn of space on the bridge if you get holed during flight.ie Cargo door not sealed correctly,some nut with a bomb,the pirate with better stealth than the average freighters sensors (most blind people with a stick)this is not a shot at blind people just freighter captains who bye the lowest sensors they can to cram that extra ton of cargo(yes i know sensors take buggerall space but what captain hasnt hidden contaband under the dash). So like in Gurps i think there is an airlock on both the Bridge and Enginnering.
Does damage to SI mean that the damage got through the armour and if so does the ship depressurize (not good for the crew but especialy for the passengers who dont get vac suits)

 

[jfwking]

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:

Sorry about first message still trying to work out how this works.
I have assumed that the 3 tons of airlock on the bridge was the security door, you realy dont want the vacumn of space on the bridge if you get holed during flight.ie Cargo door not sealed correctly,some nut with a bomb,the pirate with better stealth than the average freighters sensors (most blind people with a stick)this is not a shot at blind people just freighter captains who bye the lowest sensors they can to cram that extra ton of cargo(yes i know sensors take buggerall space but what captain hasnt hidden contaband under the dash). So like in Gurps i think there is an airlock on both the Bridge and Enginnering.
Does damage to SI mean that the damage got through the armour and if so does the ship depressurize (not good for the crew but especialy for the passengers who dont get vac suits)


When I am sorting plans and such like I divide a ship up into tonage/100 compartments each of which is a seperate area capable of being sealed off. On Solomani style designs this is done with floor and ceiling hatches and on Vilani style designs it is done with Iris valves and door hatches. Bridge and engineering and possibly cargo bay all have sealable doors.
I also allow 1 external fixture per 100 tons up to 1000 and add hoc beyond that, external fixtures being cargo door/ramps, passenger ramps/lifts and emergency airlocks. these are built into the hull and take up no extra space.
A 3 ton airlock I see as being a 6 - 8 man airlock chamber so I usualy add one of these on larger ships only. Emergency airlocks are 1 man boxes with an iris valve on each side and do not take up tonage.
If you look at many of the official floor plans they often seem to lack a large airlock, many having no airlock or a tiny 1 square emergency style unit.
Look at designing space ships in the same way as designing naval ones in that both operate in a hostile enviroment and need to compartmentalise in order to keep the hostile bit (water/vacuum) at bay.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:
Sorry about first message still trying to work out how this works.

I have assumed that the 3 tons of airlock on the bridge was the security door, you realy dont want the vacumn of space on the bridge if you get holed during flight.ie Cargo door not sealed correctly,some nut with a bomb,the pirate with better stealth than the average freighters sensors (most blind people with a stick)this is not a shot at blind people just freighter captains who bye the lowest sensors they can to cram that extra ton of cargo(yes i know sensors take buggerall space but what captain hasnt hidden contaband under the dash). So like in Gurps i think there is an airlock on both the Bridge and Enginnering.

Does damage to SI mean that the damage got through the armour and if so does the ship depressurize (not good for the crew but especialy for the passengers who dont get vac suits)

Lionel,

Nice to have you aboard! You can delete your first post by using the edit icon to edit it, and then using the Delete link to remove it from the board.

Never used GURPS starship design rules myself, so I can't comment on them. The spreadsheet shows the default 1 airlock, which T20 seems to say comes at no cost (but does take volume). If you choose to you can get rid of the airlock, although that means you're probably in a fighter and wearing a vacc suit in case of depressurisation. It is sensible however, to build as many airlocks into your design as you think will be needed (and perhaps one or two more). I would certainly want an airlock going to the bridge, engineering, the ship's hull (probably more than one of these) and wherever I thought I might want to seal a breach (access to hangar?).

SI damage means you roll on the starship damage charts in the combat chapter, they will then explain what happens. I would probably rule that depressurisation only occurs on a crew/quarters hit ... but my players have been smart enough to avoid trouble in space!

 

[themink]

I had a big problem understanding the "1 free airlock" rule.

The way I now read it is:-
i) all real ships have to assign at least 20 tons to "bridge" space
ii) Each actual bridge is 10 tons - big ships may have backups
iii) The remaining "bridge" tonnage can be spent on a small list of items. These include airlock
iv) If you wish to have more than the one standard airlock, as well as taking up some of your "spare" bridge space, it also costs folding money.

Having said the above, I do enjoy having a total divorce between "crew" areas and the "cargo" space (ie passenger/steward/medic section). Designing a large passenger liner I would probably add an extra airlock between the two sections - it also makes for a more intersting plan (rather than racked cubes)