Travellers Needed! High Guard Updates

[MarcusIII]

My highly simplified example was intended to include ALL life support, not just food. Just spitballing and trying to have some fun as a game nerd.

There's not much else for except for some water and air handling. And those items are built in machinery and tanks. Not anything you can stock up. Just so you don't put aside toomuch space that can be used for cargo or living space

 

[mavikfelna]

There's not much else for except for some water and air handling. And those items are built in machinery and tanks. Not anything you can stock up. Just so you don't put aside toomuch space that can be used for cargo or living space

Food is usually considered to be part of stores and spares allocation. For most game needs I think that works fine.

 

[Geir]

As I was supposed to be doing something else, I decided to take a look at updating the Spinward Extents books to the 2022 High Guard standard and then decided to do the entire Corellan League Star Fleet and one thing I really noticed: Ships between 2000 and 5000 tons are not optimal: You need to be 5001 tons to get a crew size reduction (which actually is a bit silly - making the minimum exactly 5000 tons would be better. Same applies to Military Hulls and Distributed Arrays. All the ships I started at 4000 tons ended up being much better designs at 6000 tons, with about the same sized crew. And exactly 5000 tons really sucks. Also, the sensor operator thing for 7500 tons seems unnecessarily one-off - making that 5000 tons as well would be less obscure.

(Didn't go though all 19 pages of this thread, so I apologize if these issues have already been brought up)

 

[MarcusIII]

Food is usually considered to be part of stores and spares allocation. For most game needs I think that works fine.

right. One can stock up on food for longer voyages. Air & water can be recycled, for the most part

 

[Condottiere]

You can always fast.

And there's water recycling.

 

[wintertraveller]

As I was supposed to be doing something else, I decided to take a look at updating the Spinward Extents books to the 2022 High Guard standard and then decided to do the entire Corellan League Star Fleet and one thing I really noticed: Ships between 2000 and 5000 tons are not optimal: You need to be 5001 tons to get a crew size reduction (which actually is a bit silly - making the minimum exactly 5000 tons would be better. Same applies to Military Hulls and Distributed Arrays. All the ships I started at 4000 tons ended up being much better designs at 6000 tons, with about the same sized crew. And exactly 5000 tons really sucks. Also, the sensor operator thing for 7500 tons seems unnecessarily one-off - making that 5000 tons as well would be less obscure.

(Didn't go though all 19 pages of this thread, so I apologize if these issues have already been brought up)

I've noticed the same break points being problematic.

For example, a 1,990 ship:
- cannot be targeted by spinal mounts but a 2,000 ship can be.:
- at less of DM disadvantage in being targeted by attack rolls
- less of a signature DM to being detected with sensors.

A 2,000 to ship is not immune to turret crits but a 2,001+ is immune.

Basically, you're better off with any ship size greater than 2,000 or less than 2,000. The 5,000 ton ships have a similar set of weakness.

The 1980 HG has some useful language regarding ship size and tonnage codes that could be useful in handling these break points " Hull tonnage for both metal hulls and planetoids is expressed as a code given on the tonnage table. Each specific tonnage level includes all values between it and the next highest stated level. Thus, tonnage code A includes all tonnages from 1,000 to 1,999 tons.

It seems like the break points in advantages and disadvantages should be linked in similiar patterns without leaving these two specific sizes as the worst of both worlds.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on doctrine and assigned role(s).

Navally, I've decided to leave a gap between one and five kilotonne primary hulls, for the Confederation starwarships.

 

[MongooseBella]

Life support could also include things like hygiene (toothpase, toothbrushes, basic medicines), not that they would take up a ton. Unless you're NASA and get confused about women

 

[Sigtrygg]

I've noticed the same break points being problematic.

For example, a 1,990 ship:
- cannot be targeted by spinal mounts but a 2,000 ship can be.:
- at less of DM disadvantage in being targeted by attack rolls
- less of a signature DM to being detected with sensors.

A 2,000 to ship is not immune to turret crits but a 2,001+ is immune.

Basically, you're better off with any ship size greater than 2,000 or less than 2,000. The 5,000 ton ships have a similar set of weakness.

The 1980 HG has some useful language regarding ship size and tonnage codes that could be useful in handling these break points " Hull tonnage for both metal hulls and planetoids is expressed as a code given on the tonnage table. Each specific tonnage level includes all values between it and the next highest stated level. Thus, tonnage code A includes all tonnages from 1,000 to 1,999 tons.

It seems like the break points in advantages and disadvantages should be linked in similiar patterns without leaving these two specific sizes as the worst of both worlds.

There will always be breakpoints, it is the nature of the system. It is the reason there are so many 1,999t escort class missile boats, 19,999t battleriders, 74,999t cruisers in HG80 threads. Moving the goalposts for MgT will just put the breakpoints where you want them to be rather than where the author wants them to be.

 

[Geir]

There will always be breakpoints, it is the nature of the system. It is the reason there are so many 1,999t escort class missile boats, 19,999t battleriders, 74,999t cruisers in HG80 threads. Moving the goalposts for MgT will just put the breakpoints where you want them to be rather than where the author wants them to be.

This is true. I just don't want to build 5001 ton destroyers. But a way to potentially balance it would be took look at the cut-offs holistically. If the same breakpoint gives a bonus and a penalty, then the 'advantage' of wonky 4999 and 5001 destroyer classes will decrease.

So, giving it a little more thought. Each breakpoint should have a pros and cons chart (and they should be 'round' numbers and match so it wouldn't be a case of one entry saying 'less than than' and another saying 'more than' leaving a sliver of confusion). So target size, bridge size, crew size, feature size, armour /hull point mods, should all line up: 5000+ gets you this, 25000+ gets you this, 200+ gets you this, etc.)

 

[Sigtrygg]

And you still have breakpoints, all you are doing is moving them to where you prefer.

Use proper scaling, the inverse square law, and consider hull configuration and you may get breakpoints that are based on clear boundaries
but I don't think that is ever going to happen. So it is just make up numbers based on whoever's "feels right"

 

[Geir]

And you still have breakpoints, all you are doing is moving them to where you prefer.

Use proper scaling, the inverse square law, and consider hull configuration and you may get breakpoints that are based on clear boundaries
but I don't think that is ever going to happen. So it is just make up numbers based on whoever's "feels right"

Agreed. You can't avoid them, but you can make them a little cleaner and less... scattered I think is the word. I'm really glad we got armour scaling on small craft, but not necessarily (in hindsight) happy that they don't correspond to firmpoint breaks, for instance.

But I still find the whole 'fighter firmpoint' thing... wrong. Because dogfighting is 'less than optimal'. Because vectors should always exist. Because actual dogfighting should really just be a straight vehicle combat thing, if it needs to be different. Well, all is easier whined about than actually done.

 

[wintertraveller]

Well, all is easier whined about than actually done.

I certainly acknowledge this. However, I think your remarks and others in this thread are all largely oriented towards improving the game and less oriented towards unproductive complaints. Overall, this has been a positive thread. I remain grateful for the request for input from this community.

 

[agentwigggles]

I mean I dont think its possible to design a system that doesnt have some hard cut off point.
Might able to solve it with a tag like system from VHB for space ships. But that isnt great either.

 

[Geir]

I certainly acknowledge this. However, I think your remarks and others in this thread are all largely oriented towards improving the game and less oriented towards unproductive complaints. Overall, this has been a positive thread. I remain grateful for the request for input from this community.

Yes. Agreed. The 'whining' comment was more self-directed, since I could actually work harder at trying to make it happen.