High Guard 2e Ship Design Spreadsheet v1.1 (Google Docs)

[bluekieran]

Yeah, I should do armored bulkheads as (yet another) drop down for each item I guess, but at the moment you just buy it in tons of system protected I think.

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening PST bluekieran,

Yeah, I should do armored bulkheads as (yet another) drop down for each item I guess, but at the moment you just buy it in tons of system protected I think.

Thank you for the clarification that currently Armored Bulkheads are designated as d-tons.

Another option would be to add a separate block, similar to what is shown on Ship Record Sheet for the Plankwell.

 

[bluekieran]

Evening PST bluekieran,

Yeah, I should do armored bulkheads as (yet another) drop down for each item I guess, but at the moment you just buy it in tons of system protected I think.

Thank you for the clarification that currently Armored Bulkheads are designated as d-tons.

Another option would be to add a separate block, similar to what is shown on Ship Record Sheet for the Plankwell.

Yeah, I think I'd need to make a web-page version to make that do-able; otherwise it would be more like a separate page with most of it greyed out. One of the reasons I'm thinking of learning to do it on the web for the Vehicle builder is that it'll be a lot easier to move stuff around that way.

 

[snrdg121408]

MOrning PST bluekieran,

Evening PST bluekieran,

Yeah, I should do armored bulkheads as (yet another) drop down for each item I guess, but at the moment you just buy it in tons of system protected I think.

Thank you for the clarification that currently Armored Bulkheads are designated as d-tons.

Another option would be to add a separate block, similar to what is shown on Ship Record Sheet for the Plankwell.

Yeah, I think I'd need to make a web-page version to make that do-able; otherwise it would be more like a separate page with most of it greyed out. One of the reasons I'm thinking of learning to do it on the web for the Vehicle builder is that it'll be a lot easier to move stuff around that way.

From what little I know about web-page design is that shifting lines of code around and keeping the page working is harder than moving stuff around a spreadsheet.

I've experimented with adding the Armored Bulkhead by individually and as a block in Calc without an issue so far.

The web gremlins have relented and finally allowed me to access my gmail account and the spreadsheet as you designed the item. Looking at the spreadsheet the adjustments might be easier than I thought.

From what little I recall of my attempts to learn web page programming the moving around of the coding is harder than in a spreadsheet without breaking the coding in the web page.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Bug: Drives with Reduced Size should calculate cost based on current size.

An High Tech M-drive-2 for a 200 dT ship with Reduced Size twice should cost ( 200 × 2% × 80% ) [Size] × MCr2 × 150 % = MCr 9.6.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

Bug: Drives with Reduced Size should calculate cost based on current size.

An High Tech M-drive-2 for a 200 dT ship with Reduced Size twice should cost ( 200 × 2% × 80% ) [Size] × MCr2 × 150 % = MCr 9.6.

I'm not sure what is met by [Size] in the equation but I believe the equation works like this

From p. 14 the MD tonnage

200 x 0.02 = 4 d-tons
Drive Cost = 4 d-tons x MCr2 = MCr8

From the Primitive & Advanced Table selecting High Tech increase cost by 50% and Size Reduction is taken twice leaving one of the 3 required Advantage modifications available.

Taking Size Reduction twice reduces the MD size by 20% or the drive is 80% smaller

High Tech MD size = 200 x 0.02 x 0.8 = 4 d-tons x 0.8 = 3.2 d-tons

High Tech MD 3.2 d-tons Cost = 3.2 x MCr2 = MCr6.4
Very Advanced Increase cost = 0.5 MCr6.4 = MCr3.2
Cost of a 3.2 d-ton MD is MCr6.4 + MCr3.2 = MCr9.6

Have I correctly understood the equation?

 

[AndrewW]

I'm not sure what is met by [Size] in the equation but I believe the equation works like this

The cost is calculated by the drive size, this can be a smaller drive based on size reduction. Calculate the cost based on the actual size of the drive.

 

[bluekieran]

Bug: Drives with Reduced Size should calculate cost based on current size.

An High Tech M-drive-2 for a 200 dT ship with Reduced Size twice should cost ( 200 × 2% × 80% ) [Size] × MCr2 × 150 % = MCr 9.6.

Yeah, that was deliberate after I saw it discussed in another thread. It's somewhat imbalanced to get a smaller drive and a lower price - it's free cargo space - and I couldn't bring myself to read the rule that way!

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AndrewW,

I'm not sure what is met by [Size] in the equation but I believe the equation works like this

The cost is calculated by the drive size, this can be a smaller drive based on size reduction. Calculate the cost based on the actual size of the drive.

So the [Size] supposedly means the actual size determined after all modifications have been calculated.

Personally the [Size] in the equation did not suggest the "actual size after modifications" and I had no idea of what it was supposed to tell me.

Where would I do the calculations for adding an armored bulkhead and hardening the MD before or after the Primitive/Advanced Options?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So the [Size] supposedly means the actual size determined after all modifications have been calculated.

Yes, sorry for being cryptic.

Where would I do the calculations for adding an armored bulkhead and hardening the MD before or after the Primitive/Advanced Options?

Always use current, modified size and cost.

Note that the bulkheads are a separate system that does not modify the size (& hence cost) of the protected component.

So in the above example the size of the drive is:
Size of drive = 200 × 2% × 80% = 3.2 dT
Cost of drive = 3.2 dT × 2 × 150% = MCr 9.6

Hardening is a property of the drive, adds 50% to the cost:
Cost of drive = MCr 9.6 × 150% = MCr 14.4

Bulkheads are a separate component:
Size = 3.2 dT × 10% = 0.32 dT
Cost = 0.32 × MCr 0.2 = MCr 0.064

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yeah, that was deliberate after I saw it discussed in another thread. It's somewhat imbalanced to get a smaller drive and a lower price - it's free cargo space - and I couldn't bring myself to read the rule that way!

Higher tech is better!

 

[bluekieran]

Yeah, that was deliberate after I saw it discussed in another thread. It's somewhat imbalanced to get a smaller drive and a lower price - it's free cargo space - and I couldn't bring myself to read the rule that way!

Higher tech is better!

Sure; but in-game, for balance, that's always represented as a single advantage - smaller, more efficient/some other advantage. or (under some older rules) cheaper without any other advantage. Getting smaller _and_ cheaper... I'm not saying it's not justifiable, but I can't imagine that it was intended.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You are not really getting smaller and cheaper, you are only getting smaller.

Base Jump Drive: 10 dT, Cost 10 × 1.5 = MCr 15.
Advanced Size Reduced Drive:
Size = 10 × 80% = 8 dT.
Cost = 8 dT × 1.5 × 125% = MCr 15.

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning PDT AnotherDilbert,

So the [Size] supposedly means the actual size determined after all modifications have been calculated.

Yes, sorry for being cryptic.

In the US the latest new math concepts have me confused to the point I do not have any idea of what the answer is, at least I did get the right answer even though I took the long way around.

Where would I do the calculations for adding an armored bulkhead and hardening the MD before or after the Primitive/Advanced Options?

Always use current, modified size and cost.

Note that the bulkheads are a separate system that does not modify the size (& hence cost) of the protected component.

So in the above example the size of the drive is:
Size of drive = 200 × 2% × 80% = 3.2 dT
Cost of drive = 3.2 dT × 2 × 150% = MCr 9.6

Hardening is a property of the drive, adds 50% to the cost:
Cost of drive = MCr 9.6 × 150% = MCr 14.4

Bulkheads are a separate component:
Size = 3.2 dT × 10% = 0.32 dT
Cost = 0.32 × MCr 0.2 = MCr 0.064

Thank you for the clarification I just wanted to make sure that when I fixed my spreadsheet for creating drives using just Hull Size, Tech level, and options I'm following the right path.

 

[steve98052]

Higher tech is better!

Sure; but in-game, for balance, that's always represented as a single advantage - smaller, more efficient/some other advantage. or (under some older rules) cheaper without any other advantage. Getting smaller _and_ cheaper... I'm not saying it's not justifiable, but I can't imagine that it was intended.

There are a couple of reasons not to get the most advanced technology equipment. One is that it's more difficult to maintain, because TL15 starports are scarce. Another is that -- in some versions of the rules at least -- technology level exchange rates may apply.

The latter rule first appeared in the classic Trillion Credit Squadron, and it's reappeared all over through Traveller history. If it's not in any Mongoose book yet, the best coverage of the topic is probably the one in GURPS Traveller Far Trader, which is the best coverage of all sorts of Traveller economics topics (and probably overkill for some). At least one of the three authors is a real world economist; they did their homework.

 

[Condottiere]

Spinal mounts, if you want to use that as an example, become more expensive based on the default cost, not tonnage.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

This looks so good.
Thank you for this.
Did you also do something similar for MgT1 or is MgT2 your first attempt at a ship builder XL spreadsheet?

 

[bluekieran]

This looks so good.
Thank you for this.
Did you also do something similar for MgT1 or is MgT2 your first attempt at a ship builder XL spreadsheet?

That was my first attempt; I've never played MgT1 as I was only introduced to the system recently.

 

[h1ro]

Bluekieran

Are you planning on adding the recalculation of drive performance to account for drop tanks, external cargo and clamped ships or did I miss it?

What's the reason for the 75 ton limit on external cargo?

Ta!

 

[mancerbear]

I still need to get a hold of this.