Smaller, Larger bridges

[Chas]

Going through the Smaller/Larger bridges again and thinking this still needs some work, or could be dropped all together.

The boon is so useful that everybody will look to build it in the ship - it becomes less an option than a must get... and it's easily gotten in most builds, which pretty much invalidates putting it in 'as an option' it might as well be default.

Also what happens when you are already over the 2000ton max size for the bridge? You just can't upgrade any more? Which seems an unfair/no particular rationale and an overly big downgrade grade when you lose the boon.

And then what happens at the small end? Presuming this doesn't apply to a cockpit, you can put 6 tons of bridge in a sub 50 ton craft and get a boon on your dogfighting roll for example? This would need clarification.

The boon terminology is also loose. A small ship fires its fixed mount weapons from the bridge, so you can get a boon on your gunnery skill? Sensors are managed from the bridge, so you can get a boon on that also? Where are the limits?

 

[Nerhesi]

Boon/Bane has its own challenges. As for larger/smaller bridges - it really should just control how many crew stations can function from the bridge.

Having bonuses/penalties associated just opens up a can of worms - especially around piloting and gunnery.

Although luckily, you'd want boon/bane rather than bonuses and penalties, as long as it applied only to piloting. A +1 to gunnery/piloting would be way more powerful (applying to actual combat and not being balanced in reverse)

But really - does it make sense? I honestly don't think so.

So my vote is change the benefit to something more fluffy, or keep it as boon/bane because at least that way it doesn't app to firing and dodging, just boarding and so on.

 

[phavoc]

Bridges don't need to be huge for a larger ship to function well. Besides, most ships of size use a distributed system concept for this. Thin of Star Trek and other sci-fi shows where you had departments controlled from one or two consoles. The BSG series did the opposite though, and they had really large bridges that contained stations for many departments. Though they aren't necessary for the smooth running of a ship. It would depend on your mindset and culture as far as the concepts of leadership and control go. Some races might do better, while others not so much.

 

[Chas]

Agree. Which is part and parcel why I'm not that keen on this option. It seems to be making a game design complication for no particular flavor or trade off option.

 

[phavoc]

Yeah, I agree with you there. You want a reasonably-sized bridge, but beyond that you really don't need to model in smaller "bridges" that are say sensor ops, weapons, defenses, damage, etc. I'm ok with making that nebulous and just assumed.

I do, however, think that specialized areas should be included. So flag bridges are special enough they deserve separate detailing. And for say a scout cruiser you might have a dedicated sensor and detection component. I came up with different-sized flag bridges and put what their purpose was (small flotilla to massive fleets), rather than a one-size fits all... not that three sizes will fit all either! But sometimes ya gotta draw the line. One thing about that sort of thing, if you get into specialized components and you want to somewhat model them correctly, a true flag bridge generates additional tonnage sometimes by requiring additional larger quarters for senior staff, separate meeting rooms, dining facilities, etc. All those high-ranking muckety-mucks get only the best for being on the admirals staff!

 

[AndrewW]

One thing about that sort of thing, if you get into specialized components and you want to somewhat model them correctly, a true flag bridge generates additional tonnage sometimes by requiring additional larger quarters for senior staff, separate meeting rooms, dining facilities, etc. All those high-ranking muckety-mucks get only the best for being on the admirals staff!

Yup, just designed a ship with one actually (Just added a second bridge for it), complete with some extra staterooms and briefing rooms.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

It may be better to state how many stations must, and how many potentially could be located on the bridge, and how much space a station requires, and how much other miscellaneous equipment is required. This makes capital ship design easier, because you then know how big your CIC should be, with all the gunnery stations.

 

[MongooseMatt]

All good points.

Going to remove the option for larger bridges, make smaller bridges impose DM-1 rather than a Bane, and put in the option of a Command Bridge for really big ships.

 

[Chas]

All good points.

Going to remove the option for larger bridges, make smaller bridges impose DM-1 rather than a Bane, and put in the option of a Command Bridge for really big ships.

Look forward to trialing this.

 

[Chas]

The changes here in the new draft look suitable.

As a comment, the space required by the bridge(s) is much lower than previous edition and will free up space and also means larger capital ships will all certainly carry the command bridge.

 

[AndrewW]

As a comment, the space required by the bridge(s) is much lower than previous edition and will free up space and also means larger capital ships will all certainly carry the command bridge.

That's by design. The bridges on capital ships where excessively large in the previous edition.

 

[Chas]

As a comment, the space required by the bridge(s) is much lower than previous edition and will free up space and also means larger capital ships will all certainly carry the command bridge.

That's by design. The bridges on capital ships where excessively large in the previous edition.

:thumbup: