The trend to Gear-headedness

[kilemall]

I would think there is plenty of space on the internet to post just about anything or is it about to run out

I liked your post about modifying the laser pistol to a 10 shot battery, but for me I don't need to consult some convoluted system of esoteric tables to justify the thing.

I don't either, but I can come up with some very useful flash that is consistent with the rules and established equipment.

For instance I am about to embark on 'what is the effect of advanced materials and chemical power on TL7 rifles', a very relevant question in a game of 'Shotguns In Space'.

To do some backtracking on just the above laser cartridge design ethos using Striker, I can divide the cost of the Laser backpacks by the battery rule per TL and number of shots per backpack, and get the yield of the lasers themselves (assuming each shot consumes 1 second of power).

Then I can design the throwaway power cartridges as batteries. Let's give them 10 shots per.

TL 8 Laser Carbine, 50 shots, backpack 1000 Cr.
TL 9 Laser Rifle, 100 shots, backpack 1500 Cr.
TL 9 Laser Pistol, 50 shots, backpack 400 Cr.
TL13 Laser Carbine, 200 shots, backpack 14000 Cr.
TL14 Laser Rifle, 200 shots, backpack 28000 Cr.
TL14 Laser Pistol, 200 shots, backpack 7000 Cr.

A simpler method would be to divide backpack/#shots to yield a per shot cost, then multiply by 10.

So the classic TL9 LR 10-shot cartridge would cost 150 Cr. Expensive shooting there Tex, better gather those up after the battle for recharging (just exactly the sort of crunchy that makes for flavor in adventure/military ops, especially if the frugal get caught because they were busy picking up cartridges instead of fleeing!).

BTW, I would probably rule something like disposable cartridges are half price from rechargeable batteries, so they are a bit easier to swallow, but still will ultimately cost more then the backpack, non-stylish and utilitarian though it be.

I'm assuming everyone can do that simple math, but I like knowing what output each laser is and how much juice is in each cartridge, so I'll do the whole math and get that input value.

 

[CliffBates]

The good: FT 2e is available at no charge.
The bad: FT2.5 emerges in the supplements
The Good: The supplements are still free, too
The Bad: it's intended for use with minis
The Good: Jon keeps the minis in production & stock
The Bad: the US distributor doesn't.
The Good: Chameleon Ecclectic used FT for their ship combat system for The Babylon Project
The Bad: CE went out of business, and so thier game is thus long OOP.

What is the main difference between Full Thrust and BITS Power Projection system?

 

[kilemall]

T8 LC 76 kw input, 3.83 mws backpack, 766 kws cartridge
T9 LR 90 kw input, 9 mws backpack, 900 kws cartridge
T9 LP 48 kw input, 2.4 mws backpack, 480 kws cartridge
T13 LC 233 kw input, 46.6 mws backpack, 2.3 mws cartridge
T14 LR 420 kw input, 84 mws backpack, 4.2 mws cartridge
T14 LP 105 kw input, 21 mws backpack, 1.05 mws cartridge

Interestingly, this also tends to yield what I believe were the underlying formulas for a lot of the weapons.

The TL 8-9 laser weapon penetrations matches 10kw per penetration value rounded down. The TL 13-14 lasers seem to come in at 17.5-21 kw per penetration value, but they also have much greater range then the lower tech lasers, so there is probably a range value in the original I'm not going to suss out at the moment.

So I can use this as a benchmark to perhaps make TL 11 advanced visible light lasers to try and overmatch Reflec, or work out a cheaper model, particularly in the power required.

Hmm, working backwards with the weight of the backpack instead of the cost, I get consistent results of the backpack weight, cost and power to penetration, but the backpacks are half as heavy or twice as expensive as they 'should' be.

 

[kilemall]

Using the backpack weight instead as the determinant of battery capacity, I get

T8 LC 75 kw input, 3.75 mws backpack, 750 kws cartridge
T9 LR 90 kw input, 9 mws backpack, 900 kws cartridge
T9 LP 45 kw input, 2.25 mws backpack, 450 kws cartridge
T13 LC 100 kw input, 10 mws backpack, 1 mws cartridge
T14 LR 300 kw input, 60 mws backpack, 6 mws cartridge
T14 LP 75 kw input, 15 mws backpack, 1.05 mws cartridge

This works out to 6000 Cr for the high tech carbine pack, 20,000 Cr for the LR pack and 5000 Cr for the LP pack, seems more in line with the established cost structure.

The penetration values work PERFECTLY if you use the laser penetration table for ratios of penetration as divisors re: range for everything T8-13 until the T14 equipment, assuming beam lasers.

However, the T14 LR/LP go off the rails, delivering much less then they 'should'.

I think the reason is that if you go through the whole way, the TL14 LR ends up being better then FGMPs!

Given a 300 kw input, the LR should be delivering a penetration set of 36/18/6-5. The LP should be delivering 9/4/2, which means with a 10-shot cartridge costing 350 Cr, every happy boy is going to want this as their sidearm.

Given the startling consistency in 4 of the 6 lasers, I'm going to assume that the designer ran into his own gun design trap, changed some values, but didn't get it proofread all the way and a mishmash made it to print. Whatta mess.

The pen values are not even consistent ratio between each other. Let's throw the whole thing out and get in the design intent without going crazy.

So let's drop the T14 LR pack to 2.5 kg and the T14 LP pack to .5 kg, that goes with the rest of the Striker better/lighter/cheaper mix most upgrades tend to.

That gives us

T14 LR 187 kw input, 37.5 mws backpack, 1.87 mws cartridge
T14 LP 50 kw input, 10 mws backpack, 500 kws cartridge

That yields us backpack costs of 12500 Cr/2500 Cr, 10-shot cartridges at 625 Cr/ 125 Cr each, and penetration of 22/11/5 and 6/3/1 respectively (perfect match on the LP).

MUCH much better, cheaper, closer to usable without overpowering.




So, now I have a basis to build different lasers. Could be wild to work out what a man-portable pulse laser rifle would be like.

I have crunchy munchy detail to impart to players (90 kilowatt rifle? That's last year's model! You want the 95! says the weapons ad).

And, I've uncovered what likely has been a 30+ year typo/editing mistake that has made a weapon range less attractive for use then it should have been.

Gearheads ahoy! Making the Galaxy somewhat more logical for more then 30 years.

 

[aramis]

What is the main difference between Full Thrust and BITS Power Projection system?

Scale, numerous changes to the base combat mechanics, iconography.

Plus, great differences in weapon types.

And, playability. As in, far far less of it in PPF.

 

[Murph]

Good question, the issue for me is the apparently increasing view that EVERYTHING needs to be simulated. A perfect analogy for me anyway is the difference between those of us playing Avalon Hill games vs those playing SPI games vs those playing EUROPA games by GDW (3,000+ counters). Or the difference between Panzerblitz and Advanced Squad leader. I love the galleries, and people designing ships if that makes them happy, but for a game, I prefer the ones that allow me more...flexibility in terms of running the game. Classic Traveller vs Space Opera/Aftermath type systems, or Runequest vs Chivalry and Sorcery. Give me good, solid basic rules, and then get the heck out of my way....

But what is the issue you're trying to address? Are there too many starships and vehicles being uploaded to the gallery or some other website? Are people really getting into making ships and vehicles as opposed to actually generating characters and playing the game?

That's my question.

 

[flykiller]

Are there too many starships and vehicles being uploaded to the gallery

yes. the metric is how often the uploaded designs are used in a game. the usage rate seems pretty low.

 

[robject]

Are there too many starships and vehicles being uploaded to the gallery or some other website?

No. Creativity requires a large space from which ideas may be exchanged and a few gems may develop.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

No. Creativity requires a large space from which ideas may be exchanged and a few gems may develop.

Well said.

Large space and openness = gems.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[flykiller]

gems

a lot of them are gems. how many of them get used?

 

[Blue Ghost]

Good question, the issue for me is the apparently increasing view that EVERYTHING needs to be simulated. A perfect analogy for me anyway is the difference between those of us playing Avalon Hill games vs those playing SPI games vs those playing EUROPA games by GDW (3,000+ counters). Or the difference between Panzerblitz and Advanced Squad leader. I love the galleries, and people designing ships if that makes them happy, but for a game, I prefer the ones that allow me more...flexibility in terms of running the game. Classic Traveller vs Space Opera/Aftermath type systems, or Runequest vs Chivalry and Sorcery. Give me good, solid basic rules, and then get the heck out of my way....

Thanks Murph. Other than real life issues, one of the reasons I dropped Traveller during the MT period was because of a lack of support for the system.

Meaning that I hadn't noticed that there was more support material in terms of vehicles, gear, and so forth being uploaded, than actual adventure concepts. It's part of the reason I started posting a few on my blog.

I guess what I'm saying is that it appears to be an issue that I was vaguely aware of. And it makes one wonder where the authors of the official adventures all went.

 

[Murph]

That is great for your campaign, mine, I have Laser pistol, one each, TL 9 does X damage, with Y shots. Then Laser Pistol, one each, TL 14, X damage, Y shots. I (and my players) have no desire for more information. Avalon Hill vs SPI sort of deal.

Using the backpack weight instead as the determinant of battery capacity, I get

T8 LC 75 kw input, 3.75 mws backpack, 750 kws cartridge
T9 LR 90 kw input, 9 mws backpack, 900 kws cartridge
T9 LP 45 kw input, 2.25 mws backpack, 450 kws cartridge
T13 LC 100 kw input, 10 mws backpack, 1 mws cartridge
T14 LR 300 kw input, 60 mws backpack, 6 mws cartridge
T14 LP 75 kw input, 15 mws backpack, 1.05 mws cartridge

This works out to 6000 Cr for the high tech carbine pack, 20,000 Cr for the LR pack and 5000 Cr for the LP pack, seems more in line with the established cost structure.

The penetration values work PERFECTLY if you use the laser penetration table for ratios of penetration as divisors re: range for everything T8-13 until the T14 equipment, assuming beam lasers.

However, the T14 LR/LP go off the rails, delivering much less then they 'should'.

I think the reason is that if you go through the whole way, the TL14 LR ends up being better then FGMPs!

Given a 300 kw input, the LR should be delivering a penetration set of 36/18/6-5. The LP should be delivering 9/4/2, which means with a 10-shot cartridge costing 350 Cr, every happy boy is going to want this as their sidearm.

Given the startling consistency in 4 of the 6 lasers, I'm going to assume that the designer ran into his own gun design trap, changed some values, but didn't get it proofread all the way and a mishmash made it to print. Whatta mess.

The pen values are not even consistent ratio between each other. Let's throw the whole thing out and get in the design intent without going crazy.

So let's drop the T14 LR pack to 2.5 kg and the T14 LP pack to .5 kg, that goes with the rest of the Striker better/lighter/cheaper mix most upgrades tend to.

That gives us

T14 LR 187 kw input, 37.5 mws backpack, 1.87 mws cartridge
T14 LP 50 kw input, 10 mws backpack, 500 kws cartridge

That yields us backpack costs of 12500 Cr/2500 Cr, 10-shot cartridges at 625 Cr/ 125 Cr each, and penetration of 22/11/5 and 6/3/1 respectively (perfect match on the LP).

MUCH much better, cheaper, closer to usable without overpowering.




So, now I have a basis to build different lasers. Could be wild to work out what a man-portable pulse laser rifle would be like.

I have crunchy munchy detail to impart to players (90 kilowatt rifle? That's last year's model! You want the 95! says the weapons ad).

And, I've uncovered what likely has been a 30+ year typo/editing mistake that has made a weapon range less attractive for use then it should have been.

Gearheads ahoy! Making the Galaxy somewhat more logical for more then 30 years.

 

[kilemall]

That is great for your campaign, mine, I have Laser pistol, one each, TL 9 does X damage, with Y shots. Then Laser Pistol, one each, TL 14, X damage, Y shots. I (and my players) have no desire for more information. Avalon Hill vs SPI sort of deal.

Apple vs. Linux would be my metaphor as I want to be able to crawl around inside the code rather then have it be a pretty magic sausage box I can't access or really mess with.

And that's fine, my gearheadedness should not impinge upon your 'ok I press this button and it works thisaway no details' approach.

The two can co-exist IMO, no need though to demand 'one must have the system right there to gearhead' nor say 'whoa too much detail don't publish'.

I am making an assumption here that maybe the T5 maker thing and all our relentless discussion in Fleet about HG is 'going off the rails' into gearheadness.

Well. Maybe.

If I were driving the T5 boat, I would have the basic equipment list in the core book and leave the maker stuff for the equipment add-on build book.

Look it up, print a shopping list for the players and go for you, crunchy munchy options for me.

Like most every other sci-tech RPG system I have seen over the decades.

Win-win.

 

[Murph]

I like the Apple vs Linux analogy quite well. Years ago in Different Worlds Magazine they had an article on the 4 ways of the gamers: The Power Gamer (read munchkin), The Wargamer, the Role-Player, and the Storyteller. I think that these apply quite well also to this discussion. Very few are pure styles, but I think the gear head guys tend to be more of the Wargamer ilk. Whereas I tended to the story teller/roleplayer ilk. Both are equally valid, just different styles. I wholeheartedly agree that the Rules should be basic so anyone can use them, and then supplement for the Gearheads, etc. such as GDW did with Striker/Fire Fusion and Steel.

Apple vs. Linux would be my metaphor as I want to be able to crawl around inside the code rather then have it be a pretty magic sausage box I can't access or really mess with.

And that's fine, my gearheadedness should not impinge upon your 'ok I press this button and it works thisaway no details' approach.

The two can co-exist IMO, no need though to demand 'one must have the system right there to gearhead' nor say 'whoa too much detail don't publish'.

I am making an assumption here that maybe the T5 maker thing and all our relentless discussion in Fleet about HG is 'going off the rails' into gearheadness.

Well. Maybe.

If I were driving the T5 boat, I would have the basic equipment list in the core book and leave the maker stuff for the equipment add-on build book.

Look it up, print a shopping list for the players and go for you, crunchy munchy options for me.

Like most every other sci-tech RPG system I have seen over the decades.

Win-win.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

Well there are subclasses to the Wargamer as you pointed out in an earlier post, the Advanced Squad Leader type with all the supplements and the Panzer Blitz or Tactics II player.

I guess for me I like Space Fantasy over a need to think Traveller is only about Hard Science. A ten shot laser pistol with a small battery pack that fits in the handle is better for me than having to lug around a car battery on my back to achieve the same thing. And I think spaceships should have shields and cloaking devices :rant:

I am amazed to the lengths people have gone to simulate things in this game but at some point it seems to take away rather than add to the game.

 

[Murph]

Agreed.

Well there are subclasses to the Wargamer as you pointed out in an earlier post, the Advanced Squad Leader type with all the supplements and the Panzer Blitz or Tactics II player.

I guess for me I like Space Fantasy over a need to think Traveller is only about Hard Science. A ten shot laser pistol with a small battery pack that fits in the handle is better for me than having to lug around a car battery on my back to achieve the same thing. And I think spaceships should have shields and cloaking devices :rant:

I am amazed to the lengths people have gone to simulate things in this game but at some point it seems to take away rather than add to the game.

 

[jec10]

I like the Apple vs Linux analogy quite well. Years ago in Different Worlds Magazine they had an article on the 4 ways of the gamers: The Power Gamer (read munchkin), The Wargamer, the Role-Player, and the Storyteller. I think that these apply quite well also to this discussion. Very few are pure styles, but I think the gear head guys tend to be more of the Wargamer ilk. Whereas I tended to the story teller/roleplayer ilk. Both are equally valid, just different styles. I wholeheartedly agree that the Rules should be basic so anyone can use them, and then supplement for the Gearheads, etc. such as GDW did with Striker/Fire Fusion and Steel.

I agree with these sentiments, but issues may arise (and have in past editions) when the "gear" in the basic book(s) isn't replicable using the advanced gearhead books.

The obvious answer is that the gear design sequences should be done at the outset and used to create everything in the game by the authors. But they don't have to be introduced in the basic book(s), which just present the gear fully-formed and ready-to-play.

 

[kilemall]

I agree with these sentiments, but issues may arise (and have in past editions) when the "gear" in the basic book(s) isn't replicable using the advanced gearhead books.

The obvious answer is that the gear design sequences should be done at the outset and used to create everything in the game by the authors. But they don't have to be introduced in the basic book(s), which just present the gear fully-formed and ready-to-play.

Yes, that is the way to go.

Clearly the Striker author for instance tried to use his own system for the man-portable stuff, but the whole logarithmic armor and power scaling issues apparently made it too tough to be consistent and made some 'undocumented design alterations' to make it work.

If it's internally consistent then if nothing else you can make a nice extra pile of cash publishing various equipment books easily, just add tasty pics.

 

[Wol]

I am not so sure this is right. Better the rules made to fit around the vision, than later finding the vision made no sense given the final form of the design rules. Usually we end up with a shot gun marriage of both, but I hate it when the tail starts to wag the dog.
Mind you, I want my cake and eat it too.

 

[Murph]

I completely agree with this, and if folks want to design gear, the rules should be available as a supplement, and those who do not should have the choice not have be forced to use them. I also noticed the trend when it went from displacement tons to kiloliters. I don't need that much detail, I want a 200 ton free trader with "X" amount of cargo (in tons), "Y" Jump, and "Z" maneuver. Then a TL 14 laser pistol with "X" number of shots that does "Y"d6 of damage and holds "Z" shots.

I agree with these sentiments, but issues may arise (and have in past editions) when the "gear" in the basic book(s) isn't replicable using the advanced gearhead books.

The obvious answer is that the gear design sequences should be done at the outset and used to create everything in the game by the authors. But they don't have to be introduced in the basic book(s), which just present the gear fully-formed and ready-to-play.