What system do you use to design starships?

[CliffBates]

I think High Guard need a slight revision for mid range ships up 800tons to 8000tons. The percentages that one finds in High Guard makes much more sense for ships for 10K tons and more. There should be a big difference between factor 1 to factor 3 meson or nuclear dampers at TL 12 vs TL 15.

I LOVE HIGH GUARD SYSTEM FOR SHIP DESIGN. BUT IT JUST NEEDS SOME SMALL TWEAKS TO tie in what MT, T4 and now T5 has added to ship design.

I think there ought to be three sets of percentage ratio for construction of ships:

1 for small craft.
1 for ships 100-800 tons
1 for ships above 800 tons -less than 10,000 tons.
1 for ships above 10,000 tons.

All the designs ought to flow into a USP like High Guard.

I think MgT HG2 is going crazy, as for MgT HG1.. I find High Guard a much better and rational system... but there are some good things in MgT that ought to be in High Guard... like drones, etc.

 

[infojunky]

All the designs ought to flow into a USP like High Guard.

Ok then explain High Guards rational in terms of weapon systems USP ratings vs. damage?...

 

[aramis]

Ok then explain High Guards rational in terms of weapon systems USP ratings vs. damage?...

The mathematical expectation is that, if a battery fires and hits, not all of its individual attacks will hit. The intent is pretty clear in HG-79, more obfuscated in HG-80... weapons with better hit rates require fewer weapons per +1 rating.

Now, HG-80 looks more like a doubling curve - thus a log scale - than does HG-79.

 

[savage]

Still using CT/HG and/or T20, TNE FF&S for specialty items.

 

[Timerover51]

I still prefer the Classic Book 2 design sequence with some modifications, but Mongoose does give the option of other interstellar drives, which I am using in my Heretical Universe. But I am not using them straight either. There it is a combination of the Jump Drive, and a modified version of H. Beam Piper's hyperdrive.

Basically, the Jump Drive gets you places in one week, while the hyperdrive takes a week to cover a parsec, but has a lot longer range than Jump-6. Just slower getting there.

I have reworked the computer set-up a bit as well, but overall, I still like the Classic system. I used it to build my Jump-3 600 ton subsidized merchant, the Wandering Minstrel.

 

[Ulsyus]

Widda_AW built a great T5 design spreadsheet that you can get here. Makes it very easy to design and modify ACS's for T5. I thoroughly recommend it.

 

[JFGarber]

I'd like to take a look, but get a screen full of gibberish. My browser (Firefox) thinks it's an .html file.

Help?

 

[aramis]

I'd like to take a look, but get a screen full of gibberish. My browser (Firefox) thinks it's an .html file.

Help?

right-click the link, select save as.

 

[JFGarber]

Excellent, many thanks.

 

[aramis]

If you're going to be picky enough to distinguish between HG-79 and HG-80, I'm going to complain you should have entries for GURPS Traveller, and GT:Starships, since the latter is a massive expansion on the former.

CT-HG 79 and HG-80 have several significant differences.

10 ton bays - 79 only
Barbettes - 80 only

Hull Armor is installed quite differently, too.

The drive percentages per rating are also different between the two... for all drive types.

And the ratings work VERY differently.

T20 vs HG-80, only 2 major differences in design:
In T20, Airframes cost 5% of hull tonnage.
And in T20, computers have different costs and are designed from subsystems; the cost of qualitatively equivalent ones are the same, but it's often possible for mid-range ships to have a more optimized computer that costs less than in HG-80....

 

[robject]

This has probably been mentioned before, but even the GDW employees would fast-approximate ship designs when it was safe to do so. For example, in the board games (e.g. Battle Rider).

In these cases, especially with larger ships, rough percentages for drives and fuel sufficed, as did rough guesstimations of the balance for payload.

So in other words, ship design is important for the setting. Detailed ship design only must be detailed to the level of role-playing-setting support. It may go into further detail but that must not affect the RP layer. Finally, at the miniatures level, design must accommodate the different play environment.

To sum up, I see three design layers: a high-level system tailored to a board or miniatures game; a role-playing layer of detail; and optional deeply mechanical detailed layer(s) tailored specifically for tinkerers. Note that this mechanical layer does not define the rest of the system; it is derived. Usually people think the other 'way 'round: design the most detailed layer first. But the correct way to do it is to design for the RP layer first, and then work outward in both directions as needed.

And as long as I'm spewing baloney:

Classic Traveller "should have" followed this advice when it created High Guard: conforming the drive percentages to Book 2's pseudo-formula and (at the same time) gently nudging Book 2 into formula at the high end drives.

 

[mike wightman]

This has probably been mentioned before, but even the GDW employees would fast-approximate ship designs when it was safe to do so. For example, in the board games (e.g. Battle Rider).

There is evidence that every ship in BR had been designed using FF&S.

In these cases, especially with larger ships, rough percentages for drives and fuel sufficed, as did rough guesstimations of the balance for payload.

Shortcuts like this are responsible for the broken designs in S:9 and worse still FSotSI.
CT ship designs are almost unbroken (there are issues with some of them) but the best system for unbroken designs was TNE.
Special mention has to go to GT:ISW where every ship can be built using the game rules provided (and remains one of my favourite design systems)

So in other words, ship design is important for the setting. Detailed ship design only must be detailed to the level of role-playing-setting support. It may go into further detail but that must not affect the RP layer. Finally, at the miniatures level, design must accommodate the different play environment.

Agree, but with the caveat that at the miniature level the design rules have to tally with the combat rules.

To sum up, I see three design layers: a high-level system tailored to a board or miniatures game;

This need not be complicated - HG2 could be re-tasked, the main change I would make would be to make weapons and screens a % based component too;
you would then have
bridge/avionics/sensors %
drives %
fuel %
armour %
screens %
spinal weapon %
bay weapon %
turret battery %
cargo %
launch facility %
carried craft %

a role-playing layer of detail;

And useful guidelines for how character skills are used aboard ship...

and optional deeply mechanical detailed layer(s) tailored specifically for tinkerers. Note that this mechanical layer does not define the rest of the system; it is derived. Usually people think the other 'way 'round: design the most detailed layer first. But the correct way to do it is to design for the RP layer first, and then work outward in both directions as needed.

Ask yourself why FF&S for TNE works, while the MT design system is broken...
FF&S defined the detailed layer first and then simplified and abstracted.

And as long as I'm spewing baloney:

Classic Traveller "should have" followed this advice when it created High Guard: conforming the drive percentages to Book 2's pseudo-formula and (at the same time) gently nudging Book 2 into formula at the high end drives.

I couldn't agree more. I still think 1e HG tables were a typo that was continued into HG2e rather than admit the mistake. Or maybe the mistake was never spotted because the GDW staff didn't use their own rules enough and fudged stuff...
By the time CT was revised in 81 HG had been around in 1e and 2e form for nearly three years - so the drive table in 81 could have been tied into the HG paradigm.

 

[aramis]

There is evidence that every ship in BR had been designed using FF&S.

Shortcuts like this are responsible for the broken designs in S:9 and worse still FSotSI.
CT ship designs are almost unbroken (there are issues with some of them) but the best system for unbroken designs was TNE.
Special mention has to go to GT:ISW where every ship can be built using the game rules provided (and remains one of my favourite design systems)

Agree, but with the caveat that at the miniature level the design rules have to tally with the combat rules.


This need not be complicated - HG2 could be re-tasked, the main change I would make would be to make weapons and screens a % based component too;
you would then have
bridge/avionics/sensors %
drives %
fuel %
armour %
screens %
spinal weapon %
bay weapon %
turret battery %
cargo %
launch facility %
carried craft %

And useful guidelines for how character skills are used aboard ship...
Ask yourself why FF&S for TNE works, while the MT design system is broken...
FF&S defined the detailed layer first and then simplified and abstracted.

I couldn't agree more. I still think 1e HG tables were a typo that was continued into HG2e rather than admit the mistake. Or maybe the mistake was never spotted because the GDW staff didn't use their own rules enough and fudged stuff...
By the time CT was revised in 81 HG had been around in 1e and 2e form for nearly three years - so the drive table in 81 could have been tied into the HG paradigm.

1) HG was revised in 80, not 81.
2) HG-79 uses different drive percentages except for jump.

HG-79	1	2	3	4	5	6
Maneuver	2	4	5	12	16	20
Power Plant	1	2	3	4	5	6
Jump	2	3	4	5	6	7
HG-80	1	2	3	4	5	6
Maneuver	2	5	8	11	14	17
Jump	2	3	4	5	6	7
PP TL15	1	2	3	4	5	6
PP TL 13-14	2	4	6	8	10	12
PP TL 9-12	3	6	9	12	15	18
PP TL 7-8	4	8	12	16	20	24

[tc=7]

———​

[/tc]

 

[robject]

There is evidence that every ship in BR had been designed using FF&S.

And Frank's quote that he fudged IIRC.

I couldn't agree more [that CT should have normalized Book 2 and HG]. I still think 1e HG tables were a typo that was continued into HG2e rather than admit the mistake. Or maybe the mistake was never spotted because the GDW staff didn't use their own rules enough and fudged stuff...
By the time CT was revised in 81 HG had been around in 1e and 2e form for nearly three years - so the drive table in 81 could have been tied into the HG paradigm.

I believe the second reason. By their own admission they fudged in certain instances -- in particular when there was little to no overlap with the RP rules. HG is an instance where they probably didn't worry about the changes, since HG was intended to be a wargame. Lo and behold, it wasn't too detailed to use in the RP game as well, and so we have what we have.

Other instances where design varies somewhat from the RP rules are less of a problem, because there is little to no overlap. Battle Rider may have squinted at FFS rules and did an arm's length assessment. By the time we're at Fifth Frontier War level, the resemblance to starship design is nearly coincidental.

 

[aramis]

And Frank's quote that he fudged IIRC.



I believe the second reason. By their own admission they fudged in certain instances -- in particular when there was little to no overlap with the RP rules. HG is an instance where they probably didn't worry about the changes, since HG was intended to be a wargame. Lo and behold, it wasn't too detailed to use in the RP game as well, and so we have what we have.

Other instances where design varies somewhat from the RP rules are less of a problem, because there is little to no overlap. Battle Rider may have squinted at FFS rules and did an arm's length assessment. By the time we're at Fifth Frontier War level, the resemblance to starship design is nearly coincidental.

This "squint at it" approach is one of Traveller's big PROBLEMS in getting buy in, and has been for years.

The incompatibilities of CT 1E vs 2E, HG 1E vs 2E vs Bk2-77 vs Bk2-81...

Many people have griped that CT 2E should have gone with HG 2E ship design... but without realizing that doing so does break the trade rules. (Even CT 2E Bk 2 breaks them.)


Other games have had similar issues; FASA's Battletech engendered arguments over which is better: Battleforce vs Battleforce 2 (different approaches to the design space conversion); Succession Wars as Scenario Generator vs its own internal combat system. ADB's SFB vs Federation Space vs Fed&Emp...

 

[Garnfellow]

So in other words, ship design is important for the setting. Detailed ship design only must be detailed to the level of role-playing-setting support. It may go into further detail but that must not affect the RP layer. Finally, at the miniatures level, design must accommodate the different play environment.

To sum up, I see three design layers: a high-level system tailored to a board or miniatures game; a role-playing layer of detail; and optional deeply mechanical detailed layer(s) tailored specifically for tinkerers. Note that this mechanical layer does not define the rest of the system; it is derived. Usually people think the other 'way 'round: design the most detailed layer first. But the correct way to do it is to design for the RP layer first, and then work outward in both directions as needed.

I don't think this is baloney at all, and in fact I think you're on to something really important.

It would be interesting to look at these various ship design systems to see what are the common core elements shared by all of them. Strip it down to the very basics, and then from that foundation build back up.

This is basically what the designers of D&D Next did, and I think that proved a useful exercise. D&D monster design is similar to Traveller ship design, in that different systems have very different levels of detail, assumptions, rules. But there are commonalities that run through all editions. Fundamentally, kobold < orc < ogre, just like Atlantic < Tigress.

For monsters, the basics would be Armor Class, Hit Dice, Movement, and Attacks. You can take those parameters to any edition from OD&D to AD&D2 to 5e and they will give you a solid foundation to build on.

For ships in traveller, you have TL, jump rating . . . what else?

 

[robject]

Many people have griped that CT 2E should have gone with HG 2E ship design... but without realizing that doing so does break the trade rules. (Even CT 2E Bk 2 breaks them.)

HG is cleaner: wargames should not have to be subjected to RP fiddliness. Unfortunately HG is not clearly a wargame design system: it's a better representation of the Traveller role-playing universe than Book 2, which is deficient for anything except small traders. But I'm repeating what everyone else has noted already.

I think HG "should have", somehow, been tuned for wargaming on the level of Trillion Credit Squadron (its primary, if ex post facto, use case for GDW), and its role-playing bits grafted back onto a redacted Book 2. If done thoughtfully enough, perhaps it could also have been used to generate the highly abstract units for Fifth Frontier War.

 

[Garnfellow]

Most Traveller referees and players probably only need very, very coarse ship details in most cases. How far can ship X go, and how quickly? How many crew does it need, how many passengers and how much cargo can it carry? If it's a fighting ship, how do its offenses and defenses compare to other fighting ships?

World design flows from game utility, starting with the most useful information to the players: Is there a system in this hex? What kind of starport? Gradually the level of detail gets finer and finer. We don't worry about orbital mechanics or albedos or specific atmospheric content until much, much later -- and most often, never.

Why not ship design?

 

[mike wightman]

1) HG was revised in 80, not 81.

Read what I wrote - I said by the time CT was revised in 81 not HG was revised in 81

2) HG-79 uses different drive percentages except for jump.

Different but the same error compared with CT, which again was my point.

HG1 switched jump drive /m drive size when compared with LBB2, HG 2 changed the % slightly from HG1 but maintained the jump drive/m-drive size switch, which is one of the points of departure, the other being the changed drive TL paradigm.

 

[robject]

Most Traveller referees and players probably only need very, very coarse ship details in most cases.

Don McKinney said as much one more than one occasion: for him, the starship was usually a box which moves player characters from one adventure to the next. My definition of "usually" is 80% (The Burrito Principle: 80% of the meat is in 20% of the burrito). If that is the case, then the referee simply fudges -- no design system necessary.

World design flows from game utility, starting with the most useful information to the players: Is there a system in this hex? What kind of starport? Gradually the level of detail gets finer and finer. We don't worry about orbital mechanics or albedos or specific atmospheric content until much, much later -- and most often, never.

Why not ship design?

There is an irreducible minimum that preserves consistency in sync with the setting, but all ship design systems go at least one level beyond that. Most payload (e.g. staterooms) is beyond that.

I think ship combat is what breaks the "minimum". But if you fudge ship combat, then ship design is Book 2 simple. If you fudge or ignore trade, it's easier than Book 2... but once you're "easier than Book 2", you may as well not worry about actual rules and use "Don's Ship Box" above.