Travellers Needed! High Guard Updates

[MonsterX]

Yup. I just wonder in what way is this classification of any practical value that we need to put effort into maintaining it?

It is just a shorthand for discussion purposes. There are lots of things that change with tonnage, but not systematically at those break-points.
Mentioning the class of ship focuses in the discussion on certain set of issues - although what ships are in that ship class might be fuzzy - and that is fine. You can argue all day about whether Scharnhorst was a battleship or a battlecruiser - and people do - but having those two different names of classes is a shorthand to quickly communicate what is meant.

For ACSs, for example, you don't have to think as much about whether it is sensible to have to-hit modifiers that are bigger than the spread of possible die rolls, see wintertraveller's link.

Whereas for bigger ships, sometimes you do have to think about that. However, to the extent this is only a problem when dealing with bigger ships it might be fine to let the situation with stacking die modifiers stand - since an ACS fighting a battlecruiser is not going to be balanced no matter what you do, it is more of a situation where you either avoid the combat somehow or you die.

(Large ship combats is something I have to deal with, though, refereeing the DNR campaign as I do. Creating suspense there has more to do with uncertainties about the enemies' capabilities - or more usually the possible adversary, possible friendly's capabilities (and intentions), than with crucial die rolls) BTW, the DNR's design is already totally obsolete, and yet another set of rule changes in between will increase those tensions. Sigh.

Whereas, to the extent it affects ACS combats, it certainly make sense to look at how much DMs are reasonably likely to end up stacked against each other. I think it is good to keep these "realistic" to the extent possible, since this enables the players to grasp the situation more easily, and the referee to electroplate from available information to alternative solutions that players come up with. You just have to think about what parts of realism you want to model, how to model them, and what to just ignore. For example, at the moment, thinking up realistic reasons why defenders might get more DMs to give minus to attackers would be a good thing to think about (or at at least to do a systematic analysis of whether this is needed).

 

[Vormaerin]

And this is relevant to a demand to "fix" that some references say 2000 tons and others say 2400 tons in what way, which was starting point of this tangent?

Besides which, that's not actually true because the BCS category is 2400 to 100,000 dtons, which is hugely variant in the issues you reference and actual mechanical differences in crew requirements and the like.

 

[hopsnbaer]

Does this really matter to the story. I mean Standards can change over time.

 

[Terry Mixon]

And this is relevant to a demand to "fix" that some references say 2000 tons and others say 2400 tons in what way, which was starting point of this tangent?

Besides which, that's not actually true because the BCS category is 2400 to 100,000 dtons, which is hugely variant in the issues you reference and actual mechanical differences in crew requirements and the like.

Someone found a third reference to it in the Starship Operaror’s Manual. It has them up to 2,500 tons. So three current publications have three separate values.

Like everyone has said, the classification could be any of them. For me, I just wish they’d be consistent.

 

[CordwainerFish]

Given that it's a cultural designation and not one that has a mechanical effect, inconsistency is just flavor text.

 

[Endie]

I’d suggest that the very real change at 2,000 tons (turrets and barbettes can no longer crit) makes that a logical break-point for the definition.

 

[MonsterX]

Given that it's a cultural designation and not one that has a mechanical effect, inconsistency is just flavor text.

Not much that can be done about it anyways. The different versions are out there, some already for decades, so you can't fix it by adding yet another number to the mix.

 

[Arkathan]

Here's another needed clarification that just poked its head out of the mire:
Planetoid craft. What volume is additional armor and the bridge based on?
The examples ignore the unusable volume. The rules don't specify that.
If any other systems are dependent on something other than total hull a clarification would be appreciated.

 

[Condottiere]

Hull armour is simple.

You either attach that over and/or under the existing hull.

And the rules say you can't add on tonnage (though junker rules would appear to contradict this).

Control centres are based on actual tonnage they are in touch with.

 

[mavikfelna]

Things I need answers on currently to finish fixing the CRB and HG ship designs:
Clarifications on modules. Do they need to be the hull configuration as the hull they are going into? If they are not, what is the effect? IE. most of the module designs in HG are streamlined, which raises their cost, but the fighter frame module is a dispersed hull. If a dispersed hull can be used, why spend extra money on even standard hulls?
Hull options can be added, but if the primary hull has an option, is it required on a module to be used in that vessel?
What about other hull configurations and options like double hulls and Light and Reinforced hull types?
It is implied in the rules, but not stated anywhere, that modules do not function on their own, and yet there are lots of modules designed to do just that. All of these modules break the design rules as written and there are modules in official products actively being used as parts of a base outside of a ship so can we get this fixed and a clarification on what equipment is and isn't allowed to be installed and if it can be used when the module is used in a vessel vs. when the module is being used external to the hull?
If a module isn't designed for a particular hull type, but otherwise fits, what is the affect? IE putting a dispersed hull module in a streamlined ship, or putting a module with external equipment, like turrets or docking bay hatches on a streamlined design.
What about putting in modules of different sizes to fill up the space? IE, in a Modular Cutter, putting in 2 15 ton modules instead of a single 30 ton.

Planetoid craft as stated in @Arkathan's post above. The rules seem to imply the entire hull, but the official designs only use the available volume for armor and bridges.

What are the actual effects of insufficient Common Area on crew and passengers? Many designs have insufficient common area, some quite significant, even in commercial passenger designs so how does that effect things?

What do Cargo Cranes and Loading Belts actually do? Is there any in game affect to having them?

And lastly, not something that needs fixing, but just a request. Just to piss everyone off that is already upset about the changes to bridges, can we get the Type II Docking Clamp changed from 31-99 ton to 31-100 ton so it's consistent with the new bridge changes?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Things I need answers on currently to finish fixing the CRB and HG ship designs:
Clarifications on modules. Do they need to be the hull configuration as the hull they are going into? If they are not, what is the effect? IE. most of the module designs in HG are streamlined, which raises their cost, but the fighter frame module is a dispersed hull. If a dispersed hull can be used, why spend extra money on even standard hulls?
Hull options can be added, but if the primary hull has an option, is it required on a module to be used in that vessel?
What about other hull configurations and options like double hulls and Light and Reinforced hull types?
It is implied in the rules, but not stated anywhere, that modules do not function on their own, and yet there are lots of modules designed to do just that. All of these modules break the design rules as written and there are modules in official products actively being used as parts of a base outside of a ship so can we get this fixed and a clarification on what equipment is and isn't allowed to be installed and if it can be used when the module is used in a vessel vs. when the module is being used external to the hull?
If a module isn't designed for a particular hull type, but otherwise fits, what is the affect? IE putting a dispersed hull module in a streamlined ship, or putting a module with external equipment, like turrets or docking bay hatches on a streamlined design.
What about putting in modules of different sizes to fill up the space? IE, in a Modular Cutter, putting in 2 15 ton modules instead of a single 30 ton.

Planetoid craft as stated in @Arkathan's post above. The rules seem to imply the entire hull, but the official designs only use the available volume for armor and bridges.

What are the actual effects of insufficient Common Area on crew and passengers? Many designs have insufficient common area, some quite significant, even in commercial passenger designs so how does that effect things?

What do Cargo Cranes and Loading Belts actually do? Is there any in game affect to having them?

And lastly, not something that needs fixing, but just a request. Just to piss everyone off that is already upset about the changes to bridges, can we get the Type II Docking Clamp changed from 31-99 ton to 31-100 ton so it's consistent with the new bridge changes?

I second the tweak to the docking clamps. 99 tons is awkward. Make it 100.

 

[CordwainerFish]

Clarifications on modules. Do they need to be the hull configuration as the hull they are going into? If they are not, what is the effect?

My gut feeling is that the configuration of ship+module would be at best the least advantageous configuration of either ship alone or module alone.

 

[Condottiere]

If there were a common, standard, subconfiguration(s) for spacecraft hull modules.

Modular cutter modules resemble cylinders, skintight to the cutter's hull.

I'd have standardized to bricks.