Excel Ship Designer v2025.05.03d

[Arkathan]

It looks like when you select a M-drive, the Record Sheet tab is displaying DSMS even if 'NO' is selected in the Drive tab.

Also...the wording of Jumps Available in the Fuel Tab seems weird. Previous versions were names Jump Drive Parsecs. The fuel calculation looks correct.

NEW VERSION 2024.10.28a
Fixed erroneous DSMS on record sheet

 

[Arkathan]

So far I have just just allocated space for 'Breakaway Hull' in all the Tender and Rider designs, but that doesn't show the G-rating, screen strength, or weapons of the combined craft as it arrives in-system. Seems like, given all the possible load-outs of the Tender, and the possible difference in performance of the various Riders, it would be impossible to guess the final performance.

After rereading the Break Away rules, 2% is 2 %.
2% of 1000 is 20.
2% of 200 five times is 20.
No matter how you cut it, you only pay once. The penalty for multiple sections is a bridge and engineering area for each piece.

 

[J. L. Brown]

After rereading the Break Away rules, 2% is 2 %.
2% of 1000 is 20.
2% of 200 five times is 20.
No matter how you cut it, you only pay once. The penalty for multiple sections is a bridge and engineering area for each piece.

Yes; so my 1M dTon Battle Tender pays 2% for the 'Breakaway Hull'. Each Battle Rider pays 2% for 'Breakaway Hull'. When they combine, then together they have paid the correct 2% of their new combined volume for 'Breakaway Hull'. That is the easy part.

Technically, I think I could get away with paying 4% of the Tender as 'Breakaway Hull', and every Battle rider paying 1 dTon (or even 0%) for
'Breakaway Hull' -- combined, they would still be correct. I don't do that though.

The trick is that all systems are shared; the 9-G tenders attach to the 1-G Tender, and the whole thing maneuvers at 4-G. All the Powerplants and Screens add together. All the weapons (which can bear, but I think that is gone in this edition) can fire. Until they separate, it is not clear that any of them can be targeted separately, so the (otherwise unarmored, lightly armed, slow moving) Tender is pretty formidable.

 

[Arkathan]

You just need the 2%. 2% of the unarmored tender added to the 2% of the riders is equal to 2% of the whole thing.
The last part is a yes.
Musing on it: Average the armor or home brew something like a percentile table to see which ship gets hit. OR
RAW: That is where file for each part and another for the whole comes in handy in combat. An SSD for the combined ship avoids the confusion of parts and requires repair costs based on the whole. But that is a rabbit hole for another thread.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes; so my 1M dTon Battle Tender pays 2% for the 'Breakaway Hull'. Each Battle Rider pays 2% for 'Breakaway Hull'. When they combine, then together they have paid the correct 2% of their new combined volume for 'Breakaway Hull'. That is the easy part.

Technically, I think I could get away with paying 4% of the Tender as 'Breakaway Hull', and every Battle rider paying 1 dTon (or even 0%) for
'Breakaway Hull' -- combined, they would still be correct. I don't do that though.

The trick is that all systems are shared; the 9-G tenders attach to the 1-G Tender, and the whole thing maneuvers at 4-G. All the Powerplants and Screens add together. All the weapons (which can bear, but I think that is gone in this edition) can fire. Until they separate, it is not clear that any of them can be targeted separately, so the (otherwise unarmored, lightly armed, slow moving) Tender is pretty formidable.

The downside is that it is surprisingly expensive, that 2% at MCr 2/Dt makes the combined ship bigger and more expensive.

 

[J. L. Brown]

The downside is that it is surprisingly expensive, that 2% at MCr 2/Dt makes the combined ship bigger and more expensive.

It works out to an additional 40 kCr per dTon; about the same as Bonded Superdense armor of 10. And it is arguably FAR more useful, as a damaged rider can be protected by the screens (and point defenses) of the Tender & other attached Riders.

 

[Terry Mixon]

A possible glitch in figuring sensor actions. According to the sheet, my 1,000,000-ton Warmonger Battle Tender allows 46 sensor actions per round. Yet the rules say this on High Guard 2022 Update on page 32:



By that math, 1,000,000/7,500 = 133.334. That should mean 133 (134?) sensor actions. As I only have 135 sensor operators, that is 3 shifts of 45, not 46, and it seems like it would need 399 or 402 depending on rounding.

Also, as much as I disagree with this rule, High Guard Update 2022 also states on page 52:



So, I shouldn't be able to add additional stations to any ship of more than 7,500 tons, but I can. My Warmonger can only have 46 (as the sheet currently is) or 133 (134?) as the rules are written, but I just made a 7,500-ton EW Battle Rider with 233 additional sensor stations to put my million-ton behemoth to shame. Sad, but that's the rules.

 

[Condottiere]

After two kilotonnes, bridges are standardized at sixty tonnes.

I guess sub seventy five hundred tonne vessels have space in their bridges for that recreational ping pong table.

 

[Arkathan]

After two kilotonnes, bridges are standardized at sixty tonnes.

I guess sub seventy five hundred tonne vessels have space in their bridges for that recreational ping pong table.

Yeah, when there seems to be a lot of room, I usually insert a fresher and a coffee dispenser.

 

[Arkathan]

A possible glitch in figuring sensor actions. According to the sheet, my 1,000,000-ton Warmonger Battle Tender allows 46 sensor actions per round. Yet the rules say this on High Guard 2022 Update on page 32:



By that math, 1,000,000/7,500 = 133.334. That should mean 133 (134?) sensor actions. As I only have 135 sensor operators, that is 3 shifts of 45, not 46, and it seems like it would need 399 or 402 depending on rounding.

Also, as much as I disagree with this rule, High Guard Update 2022 also states on page 52:



So, I shouldn't be able to add additional stations to any ship of more than 7,500 tons, but I can. My Warmonger can only have 46 (as the sheet currently is) or 133 (134?) as the rules are written, but I just made a 7,500-ton EW Battle Rider with 233 additional sensor stations to put my million-ton behemoth to shame. Sad, but that's the rules.

Didn't see/remember that side bar. In its absence, I was using the civilian crew size, which gets reduced. Automation makes sense on the larger number.

NEW VERSION: 2024.10.28b
See above.
Warning added for unofficial builds.

 

[J. L. Brown]

A possible glitch in figuring sensor actions. According to the sheet, my 1,000,000-ton Warmonger Battle Tender allows 46 sensor actions per round. Yet the rules say this on High Guard 2022 Update on page 32:

View attachment 2722

By that math, 1,000,000/7,500 = 133.334. That should mean 133 (134?) sensor actions. As I only have 135 sensor operators, that is 3 shifts of 45, not 46, and it seems like it would need 399 or 402 depending on rounding.

Also, as much as I disagree with this rule, High Guard Update 2022 also states on page 52:

View attachment 2720

So, I shouldn't be able to add additional stations to any ship of more than 7,500 tons, but I can. My Warmonger can only have 46 (as the sheet currently is) or 133 (134?) as the rules are written, but I just made a 7,500-ton EW Battle Rider with 233 additional sensor stations to put my million-ton behemoth to shame. Sad, but that's the rules.

Also add to this the consideration that 'large ships' get by with reduced crew -- which is usually an advantage. But fewer Sensor Actions is a serious disadvantage, and absolutely a consequences of reduced crew. Military ships in particular will want the option to add more Sensor Actions.

I think the most reasonable correction is simply to ignore the stupid '7500 dTon' limitation in HGU 2022.

HGU 2022, page 22:

Crew reductions can only be applied to the following
roles: engineer, maintenance, gunner, administrators
and sensor operators. Calculate officers and medics
after reducing the other roles.

The more complicated approach on the spreadsheet is to put in check-boxes for each type of crew separately:
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Engineers?'
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Maintenance crew?'
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Gunners?'
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Administrators?'
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Sensor Operators?'
They would all be on-by-default, I suppose.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Also add to this the consideration that 'large ships' get by with reduced crew -- which is usually an advantage. But fewer Sensor Actions is a serious disadvantage, and absolutely a consequences of reduced crew. Military ships in particular will want the option to add more Sensor Actions.

I think the most reasonable correction is simply to ignore the stupid limitation in HGU 2022.

I agree, but as I was building ships for others to consider, they’d have called me out for sure.

 

[Arkathan]

Also add to this the consideration that 'large ships' get by with reduced crew -- which is usually an advantage. But fewer Sensor Actions is a serious disadvantage, and absolutely a consequences of reduced crew. Military ships in particular will want the option to add more Sensor Actions.

I think the most reasonable correction is simply to ignore the stupid '7500 dTon' limitation in HGU 2022.

HGU 2022, page 22:

The more complicated approach on the spreadsheet is to put in check-boxes for each type of crew separately:
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Engineers?'
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Maintenance crew?'
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Gunners?'
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Administrators?'
'Use reduced crew for large ships for Sensor Operators?'
They would all be on-by-default, I suppose.

The sidebar eliminates this. SO, the current version uses the straight sensop calculation with no crew reductions for number of actions, adds in the additional sensor stations AND throws a warning on the sensor page and the record sheet for a non-standard build if you use sensor stations on a big ship.

 

[Condottiere]

You can have any number of crew as sensor operators, and any number of sensor workstations installed.

Commercially speaking, you send out an intern onto the crows nest, and give him a pair of binoculars.

 

[Arkathan]

You can have any number of crew as sensor operators, and any number of sensor workstations installed.

Commercially speaking, you send out an intern onto the crows nest, and give him a pair of binoculars.

And if you really like them, you even let them put on a vacc suit first.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Considering the reduced crew for larger ships and the fast that different ships have different needs, I'd like to suggest a dropdown on the sensors tab allowing the choice to use reduced crews for sensor operators (with the attending drop in sensor actions) and let the designer choose to use it or not. A fuel tanker doesn't need a full complement of sensor operators and should use the reduced crew. A frontline warship likely would want every warm body and the sensor actions they bring to the table.

The crew reduction rule does say can rather than must, so this is one spot where it really depends on the designer and they should have the option.

 

[Arkathan]

Considering the reduced crew for larger ships and the fast that different ships have different needs, I'd like to suggest a dropdown on the sensors tab allowing the choice to use reduced crews for sensor operators (with the attending drop in sensor actions) and let the designer choose to use it or not. A fuel tanker doesn't need a full complement of sensor operators and should use the reduced crew. A frontline warship likely would want every warm body and the sensor actions they bring to the table.

The crew reduction rule does say can rather than must, so this is one spot where it really depends on the designer and they should have the option.

That is what the custom crew column in the Crew Tab is for. It is the ultimate user override.
It gives you the suggested crew levels for each position and then lets you completely ignore it.
On a large ship, the sensor actions field will provide the number that will give you one sensop per action.

 

[Terry Mixon]

That is what the custom crew column in the Crew Tab is for. It is the ultimate user override.
It gives you the suggested crew levels for each position and then lets you completely ignore it.
On a large ship, the sensor actions field will provide the number that will give you one sensop per action.

True, but I'd have to know the calculation to know what the reduced crew rule said to get the number and that adds complications. Even if I enter it in the custom field, that doesn't change the sensor operations per round calculation. 1 sensop still gets lots of operations according to the spreadsheet.

If there is a dropdown, you can get the full sensops crew or the reduced crew per the rules without having to do the calculations yourself, and the sensor operations number is correct in both cases.

 

[Arkathan]

Easier to put a toggle on the crew page to turn off the ship size reduction. Turn it off multiplies by one, then you have the original calculations right there and can customize based on that. Flipping it on and off lets you copy based on each line as desired. Fewer buttons means fewer things to go wrong.
The sensor action calculation is 1 per 7500 tons, same as the normal sensor crew calculation before the size discount.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Easier to put a toggle on the crew page to turn off the ship size reduction. Turn it off multiplies by one, then you have the original calculations right there and can customize based on that. Flipping it on and off lets you copy based on each line as desired. Fewer buttons means fewer things to go wrong.
The sensor action calculation is 1 per 7500 tons, same as the normal sensor crew calculation before the size discount.

Whatever works best if fine by me. It also needs to know someone set a custom number and account for the number of sensops there.