Only 1 Computer?

Vormaerin said:
You want to have the ship's computers take up space on the ship? Okay. They used to. Everyone complained how silly it was that they computers were so big. :D That's how they became integral to all the components of the ship.

That's going have strange effects. Right now, the cost for a Model 1 computer (5 bandwidth) is Cr6000 per point of bandwidth 5. A Model 7 computer (35 bandwidth) costs over Cr850,000 per point of bandwidth. Are you going to say you can have a TL 7 35 bandwidth computer for Cr210,000 or a TL 15 5 bandwidth computer that costs MCr4?
Click to expand...
Actual costs and sizes per Bandwidth at each TL would have to be worked out to whatever would make sense. I'd have to play with some numbers and see how it all comes out. I'd probably use the retrotech rules for computer brains as a starting point as far as cost goes. Bandwidth should be more expensive at lower TLs and getting cheaper as the TL advances. Just as software should require more bandwidth at higher TLs illustrating higher capabilities. The tonnage per point of Bandwidth should also reduce as the TL increases.
 
Fire Fusion and Steel does something like that, though it uses Megawatts instead of abstract Power so you'd need to mess around a bit with it. It also expects starships to have one master computer, one backup computer, and one jump control computer :P

1721290151176.png1721290190124.png
 
Vormaerin said:
Fire Fusion and Steel does something like that, though it uses Megawatts instead of abstract Power so you'd need to mess around a bit with it. It also expects starships to have one master computer, one backup computer, and one jump control computer :p

View attachment 2012View attachment 2013
Click to expand...
More complicated than I was thinking. I was thinking one chart with 3 columns. Tech Level, Size per Bandwidth, and Cost per Bandwidth.
 
FFS is far more complicated than anything in use today.

I don't see how you do without a power cost, though. So you are going to have to have Cost/Power Use/Volume per Bandwidth by TL. So four columns. But that still gives you a single central computer, whereas the point of the conversation was originally that there should be multiple computers?

Or are you going to buy a Nav Computer with 3 bandwidth, a jump computer with 10 bandwidth, etc?
 
Condottiere said:
Spaceships: Computers

Computer rating formula:

R=TL^2/CTM


R = Computer rating
TL = Technical level
CTM = Computer type multiple

Computer type multiple
Basic - 6
Distributed - 3
Core - 2
Click to expand...

Didn't quite work then.

Probably would need massive revisions and cut outs to work now.
 
Vormaerin said:
FFS is far more complicated than anything in use today.

I don't see how you do without a power cost, though. So you are going to have to have Cost/Power Use/Volume per Bandwidth by TL. So four columns. But that still gives you a single central computer, whereas the point of the conversation was originally that there should be multiple computers?

Or are you going to buy a Nav Computer with 3 bandwidth, a jump computer with 10 bandwidth, etc?
Click to expand...
Nuts! You are correct. Power would have to be a column as well.

This was actually the method of still only having "one computer". Since if you need more Bandwidth, you just increase the Bandwidth. There is no need for "multiple computers" if you can just increase the Bandwidth of the whole system. Then you could describe it as distributed around the ship, or as a central computer core. It would not matter for the rules. The rules are simple enough to describe either. That would keep the flexibility of Referee choice without needing different rules for each bit of descriptive text. You can describe the new Bandwidth either as an upgrade to the existing system or the addition of an entirely new computer. Ultimately what I am suggesting is more in line with how computers actually work, while still being simple enough that it won't add additional work for players of referees.
 
I'm not so sure its a fair assumption that processing power is a linear number. To be fair, software packages add on in a linear manner, so the mechanic has some disconnect. Nowhere near enough coffee to think it through this morning...
 
Geir said:
I'm not so sure its a fair assumption that processing power is a linear number. To be fair, software packages add on in a linear manner, so the mechanic has some disconnect. Nowhere near enough coffee to think it through this morning...
Click to expand...
Sorry Geir. *Sending love and Honduran coffee beans*

By processing power, do you mean the Bandwidth required by the programs or the Bandwidth provided by the "computer"? Since computer software uses charts with stated Bandwidth requirements and not a formula that requires calculation, I do not see an issue in it not being linear. You just use whatever numbers are in the (new) chart, it is up to the writers to find a balance point in that so players have to do less math...lol... (although, Us geeks can certainly help to bounce ideas off of.)
 
MasterGwydion said:
Sorry Geir. *Sending love and Honduran coffee beans*

By processing power, do you mean the Bandwidth required by the programs or the Bandwidth provided by the "computer"? Since computer software uses charts with stated Bandwidth requirements and not a formula that requires calculation, I do not see an issue in it not being linear. You just use whatever numbers are in the (new) chart, it is up to the writers to find a balance point in that so players have to do less math...lol... (although, Us geeks can certainly help to bounce ideas off of.)
Click to expand...
What I meant (second cup working a bit, third a possibility) is that the hardware required to achieve a linear increase in bandwidth is not necessarily linear.

However, the problem with that logic is that rather than buying a model 20 to run two bandwidth 10 programs, you'd just buy two model 10s for much less cost. And then the pricing model breaks down, even if the power required to run a single bandwidth 20 program is actual four or eight or more times than that required to run a 10 bandwidth program.

As it is, software is so expensive (why did anti-hijack goin from being cheap to... not?) that the incentive to develop cheaper or free software would be very high. So I fear touching the system too hard, because I don't think it will withstand scrutiny, but I also don't want every ship to be mostly controlled and mastered by software instead of humans... despite the likelihood that this would actually be the case (like I said don't poke at the house of cards... or people in glass mainframes shouldn't toss bytes - okay, still need more coffee).
 
Geir said:
What I meant (second cup working a bit, third a possibility) is that the hardware required to achieve a linear increase in bandwidth is not necessarily linear.

However, the problem with that logic is that rather than buying a model 20 to run two bandwidth 10 programs, you'd just buy two model 10s for much less cost. And then the pricing model breaks down, even if the power required to run a single bandwidth 20 program is actual four or eight or more times than that required to run a 10 bandwidth program.

As it is, software is so expensive (why did anti-hijack goin from being cheap to... not?) that the incentive to develop cheaper or free software would be very high. So I fear touching the system too hard, because I don't think it will withstand scrutiny, but I also don't want every ship to be mostly controlled and mastered by software instead of humans... despite the likelihood that this would actually be the case (like I said don't poke at the house of cards... or people in glass mainframes shouldn't toss bytes - okay, still need more coffee).
Click to expand...
In My idea, you'd be scrapping named computers, so you want 20 bandwidth, you buy 20 bandwidth. So there would be no cheaper way to get bandwidth. Bandwidth is bandwidth. For simplicity sake keep it linear. All bandwidth of the same TL is the same price. Bandwidth only changes price when you change TL, but it also changes size and power requirements. with TL. If you are at a TL12 world, you could buy up to TL12 Bandwidth, but you could also buy obsolete systems to repair damage to your computer. These would be purchased at the TL of the bandwidth, not the TL of the world, as long as the TL of the world is high enough to have your TL of Bandwidth.
 
Chances are computational factor will plateau at some point.

Basically, what we have here are how many programmes can run simultaneously, and how effective they are, especially in an adversarial situation.
 
Condottiere said:
Chances are computational factor will plateau at some point.

Basically, what we have here are how many programmes can run simultaneously, and how effective they are, especially in an adversarial situation.
Click to expand...
That would overcomplicate it. Just keep it simple. Plus, computers only plateau within their TLs. Once you unlock new technology, those plateaus are gone. Vaccuum tubes to silicon chips. Electro-mechanical computing to quantum computing. I am sure We will see much more of this as We move past TL-8. In Traveller, storage capacity is already unlimited.
 
I think for the 50th anniversary Mongoose should do a 5eD&D.

Simplify and go back to basics.

Start now trawling through to see what is worth keeping and what is contradictory or just doesn't work (weapon design rules in mercenary cough cough)

Cut the complexity and get the new rules out to the authors with a simple - stick to this - instead of different authors having contradictory rules or in some cases the same author :)
 
Sigtrygg said:
I think for the 50th anniversary Mongoose should do a 5eD&D.

Simplify and go back to basics.

Start now trawling through to see what is worth keeping and what is contradictory or just doesn't work (weapon design rules in mercenary cough cough)

Cut the complexity and get the new rules out to the authors with a simple - stick to this - instead of different authors having contradictory rules or in some cases the same author :)
Click to expand...
If Mongoose goes the way of D&D for stupid people, ie. 5th Ed, I'd quit playing, same as I did for D&D after they moved to 4th Ed. If large swaths of the official universe needs to be retconned to fit new rules, then they are better off just making a new game and not calling it Traveller. Every modern day article about D&D that I have seen is about how they are rewriting this or "updating" that to the point where they no longer fit into their OTU, such as Forgotten Realms in D&D.

If it is just an effort to make as much as possible internally consistent, than I am all for it and am game to help however I can. Same with stuff like the computer rules. It is counter-intuitive to say that if I don't have enough computer power to run a program, I can't just add another computer specifically to run that one program. Or that refits can't increase the size of the engine room. I do not want to rewrite of the whole universe from scratch. Part of what I love about the Traveller system is its versatility. I can run almost any type of game as long as the rules have been written to play that kind of game within the existing system. I can play Traveller as a shoot'em up or I can play Traveller as James Bond or I can play a campaign building a merchant empire starting from one guy with a ship and a mortgage. All of those are possible in Traveller, just some of those are more supported by the rules than the others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mavikfelna
Thoughts on Ship Optimization
Replies
6
Views
340
MarcusIII
MarcusIII
matrixcowboy
I love Traveller because of the ships!
Replies
11
Views
2K
actionman
actionman
mavikfelna
Post Career Benefits
Replies
15
Views
2K
mavikfelna
mavikfelna
Terry Mixon
A Night of Interstellar Melodrama: The Morrigan's Bollywoof Experience
Replies
2
Views
1K
Endie
E
MongooseMatt
  • Sticky
State of the Mongoose 2025
8 9 10
Replies
191
Views
7K
Corwin71
C
Back
Top