Which ship design rules work best?
- Thread starter Olschoolgamer
- Start date
I have been thinking about getting FFS as an aid for creating ships and deckplans for CT. How compatable is the starship data with LBB2 and High Guard? Will a Scout or Free Trader still require about the same volume for engineering and fuel? I heard MT was vastly different than CT in these areas, but I find few people can advise me on FFS vs CT.
Thank You,
Arthur
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Every version is slightly different (and MT & FF&S1 even changed the jump fuel requirements).
For a 100dt, TL12, J2, M2 ship:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> HG FF&S2
PP 6dt 2.5dt
PP fuel (4 weeks) 2dt 0.015dt
M drive 5dt 5dt
J drive 3dt 3dt</pre>[/QUOTE]
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
While LBB2 undersizes the Jump and Power drives but tends to have higher fuel needs, relative to even HG.
Comparison of CT versus TNE is a tough one, since the two are very different. CT doesn't assume fuel for propulsion, while TNE does. TNE balances this by needing only a tiny fuel reserve for general ship power (based on a better understanding of fusion in 1990 vs 1976). Non-Jump functions still require a LOT of fuel in TNE, as a result, but as consumption is tied *directly* to maneuver, it is far more meterable than in CT.
MT has immense non-jump fuel requirements as well, but does not use fuel for direct propulsion. In MT, the fuel usage comes from the way powerplants and other ship systems are defined. It inherited this set of definitions from Striker (CT), which provides a set of conversion guidelines for HG ships on the battlefield. These were taken straight for MT, and produced a ship design system that resembles CT *not at all*. The very high non-jump fuel requirements were what caused MT's jump fuel requirements to be chopped from 10%xJn to 5% + 5%xJn, the only way anything vaguely resembling CT standard designs could be accomplished.
Comparison of CT versus TNE is a tough one, since the two are very different. CT doesn't assume fuel for propulsion, while TNE does. TNE balances this by needing only a tiny fuel reserve for general ship power (based on a better understanding of fusion in 1990 vs 1976). Non-Jump functions still require a LOT of fuel in TNE, as a result, but as consumption is tied *directly* to maneuver, it is far more meterable than in CT.
MT has immense non-jump fuel requirements as well, but does not use fuel for direct propulsion. In MT, the fuel usage comes from the way powerplants and other ship systems are defined. It inherited this set of definitions from Striker (CT), which provides a set of conversion guidelines for HG ships on the battlefield. These were taken straight for MT, and produced a ship design system that resembles CT *not at all*. The very high non-jump fuel requirements were what caused MT's jump fuel requirements to be chopped from 10%xJn to 5% + 5%xJn, the only way anything vaguely resembling CT standard designs could be accomplished.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Something of a holy grail for me.
One day I'll come up with a conversion or find someone elses rules that I'm completely happy with, until then I'll just keep tinkering.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
For most things yes (jump fuel being one major difference) IIRC.
To be fair, tho, while TNE uses HePLAR, G-Turns, and Reaction Mass, FF&S DOES have "Thruster Plates", so techincally you can create stock LBB and MT ships with the system.
The Jump Fuel in FF&S isn't as bad as HG as I recall. I think it ends up like: 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35% of hull size for a J1-6 drive (fully fueled, of course). That's better than HGs straight J# * 10%.
Myself? I like the concept of "details" as GURPS VEHICLES supplies as modified for use with Traveller and the ease of fleet actions that HG supplies.
What has always bothered me about any starship system of combat is the personal immediacy requirements versus the wargamer streak I have within me. Usually, the needs of one style neglects the needs of the other style and vice versa. All things considered, as many know, I'm a GURPS fan and that colors my perceptions.
What I think would be cool for High Guard is if they took the modules listed in GURPS flat out and added them to the CT version of ship building. Want a Brig? Want a ship's galley? Want an auxillary bridge? Want enhanced military grade sensors over standard civilian grade sensors? Want an olympic sized pool plus water tanks to store it when you empty the pool out? Want a Marine barracks module or a Battlesuit Morgue? Need a holoventure projector area? GURPS has all this and more. Use the fleet combat rules plus those modules, and the rather "flat - one ship design is like any other ship design using the same optimization using a limited number of modules" philosophy of HG.
Don't get me wrong - I am seriously considering using the rules for HG when it comes to fleet battles for GURPS ships, but use the GURPS battles rules for ship to ship engagements. Who says you can only use ONE set of rules
What has always bothered me about any starship system of combat is the personal immediacy requirements versus the wargamer streak I have within me. Usually, the needs of one style neglects the needs of the other style and vice versa. All things considered, as many know, I'm a GURPS fan and that colors my perceptions.
What I think would be cool for High Guard is if they took the modules listed in GURPS flat out and added them to the CT version of ship building. Want a Brig? Want a ship's galley? Want an auxillary bridge? Want enhanced military grade sensors over standard civilian grade sensors? Want an olympic sized pool plus water tanks to store it when you empty the pool out? Want a Marine barracks module or a Battlesuit Morgue? Need a holoventure projector area? GURPS has all this and more. Use the fleet combat rules plus those modules, and the rather "flat - one ship design is like any other ship design using the same optimization using a limited number of modules" philosophy of HG.
Don't get me wrong - I am seriously considering using the rules for HG when it comes to fleet battles for GURPS ships, but use the GURPS battles rules for ship to ship engagements. Who says you can only use ONE set of rules
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
FF&S has most of those extras, and it's much easier to convert those to HG than it is to convert from GURPS.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
GT Starships provides lots of optional extras that can be fitted into CT LBB2 or High Guard - or even MT and FF&S if the mood takes you.
There is one other supplement that does a similar job - the T4 Naval Architect's Manual.
Count the squares to get an idea of tonnage and then include it in your design
There is one other supplement that does a similar job - the T4 Naval Architect's Manual.
Count the squares to get an idea of tonnage and then include it in your design
Scott Martin
SOC-13
FF&S is *not* compatible with CT. There's some info on alternate drives here:
http://www.scottmartin.ca/Space_RPG/Reactionless_Drives.html
but you'll find that 1G in TNE uses a whole different (and smaller) amount of space (and power) than CT / HG as well as using less volume for jump fuel.
The last two rows (HEPLAR and Thruster Plates) are basically a comparison between HG and TNE.
Scott Martin
for a discussion on the differences.
My favorite is the QSDS (Quick Ship Design System) rules that Guy Garnett developed for T4. It had the simpliticy of High Guard combined with reasonable power plant fuel consumption. I've since realized that it had some problem areas of its own, but they were areas I didn't use much back then (carried small craft was one, IIRC).
I'm not sure where you can get a copy.
Hans
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Favorit: GURPS Starships design system
A lot of fine add-ons for player ships (including a swimming pool and a bar - a must have for the scums) and a resonably fast (pre-defined modules) system. Add in a thrust based (as opposed to fixed g-numbers) acceleration system
Second: MT with some DGP (IIRC MT Digest 2) add-on rules. After all I du have a TI engineering calculator and the math courses to use it
A lot of fine add-ons for player ships (including a swimming pool and a bar - a must have for the scums) and a resonably fast (pre-defined modules) system. Add in a thrust based (as opposed to fixed g-numbers) acceleration system
Second: MT with some DGP (IIRC MT Digest 2) add-on rules. After all I du have a TI engineering calculator and the math courses to use it
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
* OK, probably only a hundred some, and then there's all the vehicles, weapons, etc., he's done too.
Something of a holy grail for me.
One day I'll come up with a conversion or find someone elses rules that I'm completely happy with, until then I'll just keep tinkering. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you not on the ct-starships yahoo group?
There was a discussion over the summer that resulted in a series of house rules to produce ships based on boo2 to, but using highguard systems, that could be used in book 2 combat.
Similar threads
