Starship Power System Defective?
- Thread starter tbeard1999
- Start date
AKAramis said:
So I guess the question is, are you really going to be firing a 250MW laser nonstop for 2, 6, or 15 minutes? Is the damage done assuming that you're magically keeping the beam pinned on its target for that whole period? (since we're apparently ignoring lightspeed travel time for the beam and the fact that the target is probably going to be a few lightseconds away etc).
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
AKAramis said:
Well, just about any attempt to rectify power or power production in traveller ends up with people getting slapped silly by all the handwaving.....
Really, I don't have much of a point, I just wanted to say that...... :mrgreen:
Given that, I've always been partial to specifically not translating Power Points to real measures, and put it in the same cupboard labeled "do not look at me to closely" as reactionless thrust and suchlike. I know, and understand the feeling that since it's power, electrical output power, we should be able to anchor it in the real world. But from everything I've heard and read over the years, despite having a real terminology and theory, how traveller uses it is actually as hard to justify, or define in modern terms, as Gravitics.
I mean, the consequences of just trying to transmit electrical energy on that scale, store it or not use it.......pretty grim. Heat argument anyone?
captainjack23 said:
Well, my point really is that it seems that it's just adding a layer of unnecessary bookkeeping to the game to require having to keep track of "energy points" or whatever given that they're probably not required in the first place. Really this is an RPG, not a tactical board game where it's more appropriate to think of such things.
I think it's better to have all the power issues sorted out when you build the ship (i.e. install a power plant that can provide all the ship's needs in combat) and just armwave the in-game bookkeeping away like that.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
Wow, we completely agree.
Yeah, that was a very early point I made, that we really don't need power points at all - just a way to make milspec ship weapons unprofitable for civilian ships to carry; which would be handled by increasing volume requirements most easily.
Gar, however pointed out that his goal was to keep the RPG setup in combat, and having players have to do stuff and make decisions was one way he saw to accomplish that; removing those issues from combat in many ways made it more of a boardgame -unless the actual system was abstracted way beyond what he wanted to do. Which were good points.
The trick I see, is to involve the players more, it needs to make the bookeeping fun and engaging...which was his goal. Did it work ? Don't know yet.
Me, I like a more boardgamy combat system, but then as I'm either the GM, or a player in a boardgamy space combat game, sitting around while one other player does most everything isn't an issue.
EDG said:
Simpler, but by no means more realistic. In a case such as this, it's better to have the rule to be ignoredby those who choose to than to not have it for those who will. It also means no BBB drive 400 ton 12 laser boats....
I can, in my van, overdraw my alternator and discharge my batteries... by sitting idling with the radio, wipers, rear defog, dome light, and headlights all on. And that's not adding any energy weapons.
The tracking of energy is a feature. It completes the idea started with in HG, that you must account for power usage. (You can't fire weapons while charging up the jump drive, in most HG designs, nor use your agility... since you have to divert power units to hit a target number of them to trigger jump. One can, however, add capacitor banks in HG, each of which holds 20 EP per 1 ton, IIRC, with an EP being 5000MW-minutes... mentioned off-hand in JDrives in HG.)
It's just moving it from an oft-overlooked mention in an obscure rule or three to a prominent place. It makes combat dynamic, and gives us a reason why merchants may choose not to shoot back.
The "pushing" rules give us a way to allow the lower thrust vessel a chance to escape, as well. Also a good thing. In realistic space combat ranges, 1G of difference in thrust means controlling the range to within reaction time... (so, if maneuver is 1 per 6min turn, then it's 6min of accel; if instead it is a 1 minute turn, it's 1 minute).
Being able to divert power from one use to another is also dramatic. (Hell, it's half or more of the drama in the old FASA ship combat systems...)
So, having said that, the 3.2 draft has flaws in how much is generated/drawn. The overall concept, however, is both dramatic and appropriate to the genre and to realism. (And the Type S gets one laser shot with a pulse, or can jump, when her capacitors are full.... after that, she's got to drop thrust, or push the power plant if she wants to do either.)
-Daniel-
Emperor Mongoose
Although I agree witht he spirit of your point of view, I am also not happy how many times the battle cry of "It is needed to be realistic" is used to add layers of complex rules to an RPG.AKAramis said:
If we want realistic wargames, then let's make a WarGame. But I would error on the side of simple when creating rules for a Role Playing Game.
Just my .02
Daniel
Daddy Dragon
Banded Mongoose
dafrca said:
Well said.
One of the first things that popped into my head when the original announcement that Mongoose was doing Traveller was "Awesome, and it will be so easy to convert traveller ship combat to an A Call to Arms style game!"
However, this current system leaves me cold. While it may serve the roleplay side of ship to ship combat, it isn't traveller (at least as I've know it) and I wouldn't want an ACTA version of this.
YMMV
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Daddy Dragon said:
Honestly, then, it should still be easy to convert to ACTA -and I really doubt it'll be long before you see just such a conversion in S&P, at the very least. I've been using Full Thrust for CT when I feel like more mechanics/ less RPG in a scenario. Works great.
All the current new combat system does is give another option - its not like theres going to rules pure league sanctioned MGT campaigns, are there ?
And besides - how can do you honestly not like futzing with systems and still be a gamer ? :wink:
Daddy Dragon
Banded Mongoose
captainjack23 said:
Oh, while I may not be a gearhead of high caliber, I most certainly am a gearhead. I am certain that there will be an ACTA version, as you said, even if it is only an S&P version.
My reservations concern the current state of the power systems in the design which change the core fundamentals of the OTU ship to ship combat mechanics that I bristle at.
I guess I just want my cake and the ability to eat it too.
Here's a silly patch that could make power issues less of an issue for players. Assume that Having a power plant the same size of the drives would yield the required energy to drive it at 1g (possibly more if oversized) with the listed ratings being the amount leftover. Just another idea to bounce around.
I've been thinking of a system that does away with power points except for weapons (or some weapons in military ships) or devices beyond the designed configuration. (If your fat trader added a meson screen, it's gonna need juice since that wasn't an intended part of the design of a fat trader.)
That way you can still have engineers trying to get extra juice for higher G maneuvers and weapons and stuff. (Well, actually I've been trying to come up with a system that doesn't even track powerpoints, but still gives bonuses for 'energy distribution' rolls. Needs more work, but I'd like to have the final version before I fiddle too much. That way I can make it more compatible with the 'official version' so GMs don't have to do much at all, if anything, to run the sans-power-points version.)
Just another drop in the idea bucket.
I've been thinking of a system that does away with power points except for weapons (or some weapons in military ships) or devices beyond the designed configuration. (If your fat trader added a meson screen, it's gonna need juice since that wasn't an intended part of the design of a fat trader.)
That way you can still have engineers trying to get extra juice for higher G maneuvers and weapons and stuff. (Well, actually I've been trying to come up with a system that doesn't even track powerpoints, but still gives bonuses for 'energy distribution' rolls. Needs more work, but I'd like to have the final version before I fiddle too much. That way I can make it more compatible with the 'official version' so GMs don't have to do much at all, if anything, to run the sans-power-points version.)
Just another drop in the idea bucket.
