High Guard across the TLs

[Nelphine]

While I agree with the idea of lots pf computers, what im trying to do here is figure out how to

a) make the limits of computers make some kind of sense without just being 'there shalt be only 1', to keep consistency with old editions but make it more plausible

and b) see if I can use it to introduce max ship sizes (as that's a common limit in many other games, and from a defensive point of view, having a giant ship makes sense - why wouldn't they just make 10,000,000,000+ dton ships to absorb damage beyond what anyone can hope to do?) without just saying 'there shalt be a limit'

 

[Vormaerin]

It strikes me a bit like asking "why can't we have Maneuver 1.5 Drives?" It's certainly possible to have 1.5G thrust drives IRL. It's just a level of complexity not useful to delve into. Similarly, the "computer" isn't one machine. It's the aggregate value of the network on your ship. That's why it doesn't take up any space. It's integral to all the subsystems.

Obviously, the biggest problem is that there are multiple software solutions to how to do things like fire weapons and, since this is a game, it is easy to declare one is absolutely superior to another. Something that tends to be less feasible IRL.

But if you can pull of objective a that would be pretty cool.

 

[MasterGwydion]

It strikes me a bit like asking "why can't we have Maneuver 1.5 Drives?" It's certainly possible to have 1.5G thrust drives IRL. It's just a level of complexity not useful to delve into. Similarly, the "computer" isn't one machine. It's the aggregate value of the network on your ship. That's why it doesn't take up any space. It's integral to all the subsystems.

You can. A 1.5G Drive takes up 1.5% of your hull volume. Says so right in HG. 1% of the hull per G of thrust. Also, TL-10+, because you need to be able to generate more than 1G of inertial dampening.

If computer rules were built with similar rules, you could have computers of any size as well. That would be a very scalable system.

 

[Condottiere]

One plus isn't really an issue.

It's more ambiguous sub factor/one.

As regards computers, think you can have any number of backups, and they don't need to be a lower factor.

Though, just one can be active at any one time, in the network.

 

[Nelphine]

Sure, but why can't you have a completely independent network that is in charge of specific tasks like fire control?

 

[Condottiere]

It's not that most of us, presumably, haven't thought about it, it's more that the rules never seem to have evolved that far.

 

[Nelphine]

Right, which is a major stumbling block for my work. Most tasks a computer is used for.. are specialized. Splitting them into their own network makes sense. So either

we allow it, which throws most of the computer math out (you can buy a dozen computer/10 far far far cheaper than a core/60)

or

we come up with a system for why you don't want to do that (which is where my tonnage idea comes from, but it completely fails for small networks like fire control for a single turret).

 

[Vormaerin]

Sure, but why can't you have a completely independent network that is in charge of specific tasks like fire control?

All the basic operating software is included in the system itself, other than the jump drives. All the separately purchased software is either automation, which if you want to make it an isolated network would probably be a robot in game terms, or a bonus to the crew person's ability to do things. Which they technically can do from any crew station, at least beyond the most primitive controls. So they aren't really discrete networks.

You could just replace "Models" with a cost per pt of Bandwidth with certain minimums based on ship size and TL minimums for various bandwidth totals.

 

[Nelphine]

Right, but that's my point. Why are we limited to 1 network (aside from the rules stating that). In reality, we would just install a second system with the right bandwidth, we wouldn't increase the bandwidth of the first system to handle everything all at once.

Obviously, we can just agree that's how the game works, but i prefer to come up with something that is plausible that has a similar outcome that doesn't rely on 'thou shalt not' rules.

 

[Vormaerin]

What would be different about 2 10 bandwidth systems vs one 20pt system? What would you like that to result in?

 

[MasterGwydion]

What would be different about 2 10 bandwidth systems vs one 20pt system? What would you like that to result in?

The only thing I can think of with this would be that, you may lose some bandwidth making the two systems work together. So a Computer/20 will get you 20 Bandwidth, but 2 Computer/10s working together may only get you 15 Bandwidth, with the rest lost to make the 2 systems work together. No idea, really. Just My thoughts.

 

[Terry Mixon]

What would be different about 2 10 bandwidth systems vs one 20pt system? What would you like that to result in?

Maybe he wants 100 10 bandwidth systems.

 

[Nelphine]

What would be different about 2 10 bandwidth systems vs one 20pt system? What would you like that to result in?

cost reduction, and going past the limits of what cores can do.

why bother with a core/100, if i can buy 15 computer/15s?

edit: but also, i don't need to link the systems, which would limit hacking attempts, and compartmentalize my ship in the case of a breach. gain control of engineering? great, you can't control my weapon systems, the computer networks aren't connected.

 

[Vormaerin]

Is that the design goal, just to make computers cheaper and better?

Presumably that networking would mean you can't fire the weapons from the bridge? Or pilot the ship from Engineering? What do you want from a separate fire control computer that isn't a robot gunner?

Not nitpicking, but need to know what you want the end result to look like before the path there can be determined.

 

[Nelphine]

Per post #21, i simply don't like 'you shalt not' rules that seem to directly contradict what we know in reality. So, since we HAVE a 'thou shalt not' rule, I want to flesh it out and give a plausible explanation, rather than simply being told we can't.

In addition, in CT, computers seemed linked to maximum ship size. I happen to like maximum ship size rules, so I'm hoping I can make the plausible rule something that is linked to maximum ship sizes.

Edit: so I want to come up with a plausible reason why multiple independent cheap networks aren't a thing, since that appears to be a glaring 'why not' in the current 'though shalt not' rule.

 

[Vormaerin]

Well, modern Navy vessels have integrated platform management systems allowing monitoring the whole ship from consoles or even portable displays that links all the major systems and most of the systems are designed to be controlled from the bridge and/or the combat information center. The overall network is still a thing even if the specific application might be a subsystem.

So you want a Navigation computer? An engineering computer? One or more fire control computers? etc? And the sum of these is cheaper than having a Core computer? Are we going to have to physically have crew travel to the specific console for that system?

Are we touching software at all?

 

[Nelphine]

You could still have stations for each network wherever you want them, but yes, its certainly plausible that certain networks would only be accessible from certain parts of the ship (particularly fire control for a specific weapon system - why would passenger quarters need to have access to that?). (Note, again, the point is not to actually have multiple networks, its to provide a plausible reason why someone shouldn't try to do that to save money and increase total bandwidth available.)

I don't intend to touch software, I've never run into concerns with it.

 

[Vormaerin]

The obvious thing to do is just buy bandwidth and ditch the whole Model/1 Model/2 Core/40 structure.

Or just let someone put in 5 Model/8s instead of a Core/40 and say that's fine.

The size of the various programs will be a limit on how much they can downgrade. Obviously any programs that overlap in what system they affect need to be on the same network, but otherwise, its just changing the money cost and who cares about money cost in a military ship? I doubt any PCs are actually *buying* warships.

 

[MasterGwydion]

You could still have stations for each network wherever you want them, but yes, its certainly plausible that certain networks would only be accessible from certain parts of the ship (particularly fire control for a specific weapon system - why would passenger quarters need to have access to that?). (Note, again, the point is not to actually have multiple networks, its to provide a plausible reason why someone shouldn't try to do that to save money and increase total bandwidth available.)

I don't intend to touch software, I've never run into concerns with it.

This would likely be covered by a Wireless Data Link as described in the Robot Handbook on page 36.

"A wireless data link provides high-speed secure communications to a local data network such as those within a building or ship."

This would likely allow you to run the ship from anywhere from tablets. Or a neural link.

 

[MasterGwydion]

The obvious thing to do is just buy bandwidth and ditch the whole Model/1 Model/2 Core/40 structure.

Or just let someone put in 5 Model/8s instead of a Core/40 and say that's fine.

The size of the various programs will be a limit on how much they can downgrade. Obviously any programs that overlap in what system they affect need to be on the same network, but otherwise, its just changing the money cost and who cares about money cost in a military ship? I doubt any PCs are actually *buying* warships.

They may be if they are playing PoD. One of the options is buying ships from Theev.