specialized computers

[ColHut]

Do the core rules (p. 91 on) apply to star ships properly? Notwithstanding the ringing endorsement of this on p. 108, Does this allow me to add a TL11 model 3 computer with 2 more "levels" of ability for use only in its special field (say fire control)? Would it go from a rating 15 to 17 (what use is that?) or to 25 for a fraction of the cost? (+25% per level (up to 2) so 3 MCr)?

This seems daft then when a specialised (bis) computer cost +50% and gains only +5 . Maybe you can have a ter (fire control), qua (auto repair) qui (Maneouver) computer if you want using the same rules as for the bis.

Is there any prohibition implied or otherwise about installing multiple, and possibly specialised computers for diferent jobs?

regards

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

You might be able to make that argument. I don't know that you can use the TWO levels though, it should increase the effective RATING of the computer.

The BIS type of ship's computer is actually a Jump specialized computer. It allows Jump Control/2 (Rating 10) to be run on a Model/1 Computer (Rating 5). So per that example, on ship computers it adds 5 Rating points in the specialized area.

If you wanted a Fire Control Specialized computer, then you could run 5 extra rating points of weapons fire control (including Expert Programs imo) to that computer.

Having multiple computers makes a lot of sense on the larger ships with lots of weapons and might work better than trying to use a single computer that is specialized.

 

[Galadrion]

I've long been a proponent of multiple additional computer systems on starships, to the point of sometimes including such on my own ship designs. For example, it makes no sense to me to allow the passengers access to the same control computer systems (engineering, astrogation/piloting, and gunnery especially - consider that from a security standpoint) in order to allow them library and in-system communications access. So on passenger-carrying ships designs, I frequently include a separate "passenger country" computer system - it doesn't have to be particularly powerful - with library functions, a non-command patch through to communications (monitored by a crew member if the captain is particularly paranoid, but pretty much guarded against hacking attempts in any case), and possibly some sort of expert/steward programming - to put it succinctly, a housekeeping system.

There's no reason - beyond space and budgetary constraints, anyway - that other specialized computer systems couldn't be included as well. I can easily see a warship having one or more dedicated fire control systems, with the main ship's system prepared to cut in as a backup (with possible performance degradation for the sudden additional load, if the system is already operating close to capacity), and almost certainly a separate engineering network, controlling not only normal operations but also damage control (including, possibly, repair drones...)

Smart design (or paranoid, depending on your viewpoint) will probably keep these systems mostly segregated from each other, for security's sake. There will almost certainly be some cross-connection - for example, the passenger network's connection to comms - but such links will be firewalled and probably scrutinized. That's mostly the purview of the communications officer, though - after all, the comms officer is, on most ships, the de facto sysad.

 

[AndrewW]

It is common in a lot of warship designs to have more then one computer systems capable of running things. The capital ship designs in Book 2: High Guard have 2 - 4. A lot of the ones in the Reign of Discordia setting have two.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I would also use specialized computers in Capital Ships that are not military.

There is no way a megacorporation is going to pay 2000 people to fly around that mega-ton freighter.

The crew will probably be about 100 with most of the positions run by specialized computers running Expert programs.

I like the idea of a Passenger Service Computer (snatch!). I hadn't thought about that, but it sure makes sense.

 

[Galadrion]

I like the idea of a Passenger Service Computer (snatch!). I hadn't thought about that, but it sure makes sense.

*Nods* Especially when you consider how often hijacking is mentioned as a possibility. It's going to be much harder to pull that off without compromising the control computers... and this setup is intended to make that (nearly) impossible. It'd still be possible, but the baddies would almost have to have an insider...

 

[AndrewW]

I would also use specialized computers in Capital Ships that are not military.

Then it's not a capital ship.

This vessels is more then 2,000 tons, but is not a capital ship."

(Yes it does say vessels not vessel in there).

There is no way a megacorporation is going to pay 2000 people to fly around that mega-ton freighter.

The crew will probably be about 100 with most of the positions run by specialized computers running Expert programs.

The Superfreighter (100,000 tons) has a crew of 205.

 

[BP]

Oh, but it is a capital ship (it follows the design rules and supplied definition based on hull size) - but, it is not, a Capital Ship!

 

[AndrewW]

Oh, but it is a capital ship (it follows the design rules and supplied definition based on hull size) - but, it is not, a Capital Ship!

The term 'capital ship' is something of a misnomer - it should be used only to describe those vessels that are so large and powerful that they are the centre of a whole squadron, such as battleships and dreadnaughts. However, small-ship pilots tend to apply the phrase of any gargantuan super-ship massing tens of thousands of tons.

Capital ships range between 2,001 and 1,000,000 tons...

Does not say that only capital ships range between that.

 

[BP]

So where are the design rules for non-capital ships between 2,001 and 1,000,000 tons... the design is a capital ship design

 

[AndrewW]

So where are the design rules for non-capital ships between 2,001 and 1,000,000 tons... the design is a capital ship design

If you use the military vehicle design rules for a civilian vehicle, does that automatically make it a military vehicle?

If one where to use the capital ship design system for a space station, does that mean it has to be a ship?

 

[BP]

MGT capital ships aren't defined as military - only a hull size category...

 

[AndrewW]

MGT capital ships aren't defined as military - only a hull size category...

According to High Guard it should be military ships.

 

[BP]

Please quote where this is stated? [That's a setup, of course!]

This is one of my pet peeves... rule books neglecting to give clear, consistent naming conventions - so spaceships between small craft and capital ships basically have no 'name', while larger spaceships are all left defined as capital ships. Such lacks make things problematic - like forum discussions and clear rule sets.

Capital Ship Design is actually more like capital sized ship design - as the phrase Capital Ship generally refers to the biggest and baddest pride of a Navy (i.e. like the HG quote you provided). Calling both a 3,000 ton SDB and a 500,000 ton 'battleship' 'Capital Ships' just don't seem right... (of course, if that SDB is the biggest ship in a Navy's fleet - then its ok )

Sadly, there really is no reason there is even a distinction for the design systems. That is just a silly hold over from the CT days. Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of High Guard as a seperate book covering additional weapons, systems and larger scale definitions related to operations and spaceship combat. Just the design mechancis for hulls and drives should have been the same across the board (i.e. Core rules should be superceeded or been written like capital ship design in the first place). Smaller ships, are ok (though there is no reason a well designed systems couldn't support all three).

 

[AndrewW]

Please quote where this is stated? [That's a setup, of course!]

Ummm, I already quoted that above. Page 101 if you want to check.

But if you would like another quote:

...up to the immense Capital Ships - fighting vessels displacing many thousands of tons and equipped with the most aadvanced weaponry and defensive capabilities.

Sadly, there really is no reason there is even a distinction for the design systems. That is just a silly hold over from the CT days. Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of High Guard as a seperate book covering additional weapons, systems and larger scale definitions related to operations and spaceship combat. Just the design mechancis for hulls and drives should have been the same across the board (i.e. Core rules should be superceeded or been written like capital ship design in the first place). Smaller ships, are ok (though there is no reason a well designed systems couldn't support all three).

That I can agree with.

 

[BP]

I warned you it was a setup

Oh, but it is a capital ship (it follows the design rules and supplied definition based on hull size) - but, it is not, a Capital Ship!

The term 'capital ship' is something of a misnomer - it should be used only to describe those vessels that are so large and powerful that they are the centre of a whole squadron, such as battleships and dreadnaughts. However, small-ship pilots tend to apply the phrase of any gargantuan super-ship massing tens of thousands of tons.

Capital ships range between 2,001 and 1,000,000 tons...

Does not say that only capital ships range between that.

...
But if you would like another quote:

...up to the immense Capital Ships - fighting vessels displacing many thousands of tons and equipped with the most aadvanced weaponry and defensive capabilities.

The underlines I added tell it all! That was the reason for my initial post and smilie

Like I said, this is one of my peeves with the book (when one counts pg 140 which states the example ship '...is not a capital ship.' and leaves it under the heading of 'Capital Ships').

This is nit-picky, except for the fact of the confusion it creates - a fact I think we both agree with! It appears the author or editor thought so as well, but instead of just fixing the problem, someone tried to bandaid it.

 

[AndrewW]

Like I said, this is one of my peeves with the book (when one counts pg 140 which states the example ship '...is not a capital ship.' and leaves it under the heading of 'Capital Ships').

Perhaps it shouldn't have been placed there but it does clearly state that it isn't a capital ship and it certainly doesn't fit under Small Craft either. Short of creating a whole new section for one ship, where would you put it?

Now, find me a quote that defines a ship of >2,000 of a non military nature to be a capital ship.

 

[BP]

...Short of creating a whole new section for one ship, where would you put it?

Exactly! :lol:

Of course, with its 30 missile launchers, 30 beam lasers, and 60 sandcasters and loaded with 720 missiles - in some Navy's that wouldn't exactly be considered a non-fighting vessel...

...Now, find me a quote that defines a ship of >2,000 of a non military nature to be a capital ship.

Now that is a setup - as you know neither definition is clearly given in HG!

 

[AndrewW]

Now that is a setup - as you know neither definition is clearly given in HG!

I know nothing.

 

[BP]

...I know nothing.

Surely you jest - I know you know plenty! :shock:

And I hope I haven't offended you - that was not my intent = I apologize if I have.

To me HG does not clearly lay out the nomenclature for classifying a capital ship - mixing the common meaning and the use as a design system for larger vessels. Further, it neglects to label the sub 2001 ton ships.