V3-Ship Design
- Thread starter AKAramis
- Start date
Mongoose Gar
Mongoose
Yeah, computers are currently included in bridge tonnage.
Mongoose Gar
Mongoose
As for the power requirements - ack. So much for a smooth table. For the moment, assume that you need an engineer overdriving the power plant for sustained full thrust or jump.
VincentUrsus
Mongoose
I've been wondering about this since version 1.0.
Is it one/five hundredth (which would be 0.2%) or is it 0.02% (which would be one/five thousandth)?
Question about the beam weapons on ships:
Going by weapon descriptions, Pulse lasers do more damage while beam lasers have better accuracy.
In the table, though, the beam has better damage and longer reach. I'm thinking damage figures were reversed from what was intended.
Question on missiles:
what discance is used to determine missile flight time? 1round per 10KM? a round per range band?
BTW, I love the idea that missiles take time to get to the target. Kudos on using realistic physics.
Going by weapon descriptions, Pulse lasers do more damage while beam lasers have better accuracy.
In the table, though, the beam has better damage and longer reach. I'm thinking damage figures were reversed from what was intended.
Question on missiles:
what discance is used to determine missile flight time? 1round per 10KM? a round per range band?
BTW, I love the idea that missiles take time to get to the target. Kudos on using realistic physics.
Mongoose Gar
Mongoose
In playtest, we've been using one-round flight time for missiles (not realistic, but easy to remember) I'm fiddling with a more abstract range system, but it's not working yet.
Mongoose Gar
Mongoose
AKAramis said:
Yeah, I've severely screwed up the lower-end drives. Wonderful. Yeah, move the table up, I'm going to email a fixed version to Chris in a minute.
Profanity, profanity. How did I miss that?
just applied current draft rules to the Scout Courier...
I think 95 drones is a bit excessive... actually, I figure the following is a better version:
the surplus cargo is replacing fuel.
I have not bought software.
So is structure supposed to equal hull code?
I can't find anything on Rating the hull and armor; I presumed based upon fit and the three broken designs.
Code:
Item Td MCr
Hull 100Td Std (1) (100) 2
Streamlining 0 0.2
Jump Drive A 10 10 J2
Maneuver Drive A 2 4 M2
Power Plant A 4 8 P2
Jump Fuel 20 0 1J2
PP A Fuel 2 0 4wk
Bridge 10 0.5
Computer 1/bis 0 0.045
Basic Military Sensors 2 1
4 Staterooms 16 2
FPP 10Td/Day 1 0.05
Ship's Locker 0 0.1
Air/Raft 4 0.6
Repair Drones 1 0.2
2 point titanium armor 5 0.2
Cargo 3Td 3 0
Probe Drones x95 19 1.9
Hardpoint x1 0 0.1
Double Turret x1 1 0.5
==================== ==== =======
100 28.395
Armor 2, hull 1, Structure 1? 2G, 1J2I think 95 drones is a bit excessive... actually, I figure the following is a better version:
Code:
Item Td MCr
Hull 100Td Std (1) (100) 2
Streamlining 0 0.2
Jump Drive A 10 10 J2
Maneuver Drive A 2 4 M2
Power Plant A 4 8 P2
Jump Fuel 20 0 1J2
PP A Fuel 2 0 4wk
Bridge 10 0.5
Computer 1/bis 0 0.045
Basic Military Sensors 2 1
4 Staterooms 16 2
FPP 10Td/Day 1 0.05
Ship's Locker 0 0.1
Air/Raft 4 0.6
Repair Drones 1 0.2
2 point titanium armor 5 0.2
Cargo 21Td 21 0
Probe Drones x 5 1 0.1
Hardpoint x1 0 0.1
Double Turret x1 1 0.5
==================== ==== =======
100 26.495
Armor 2, hull 1, Structure 1? 2G, 1J2I have not bought software.
So is structure supposed to equal hull code?
I can't find anything on Rating the hull and armor; I presumed based upon fit and the three broken designs.
My initial feelings about ship design. These are not meant to be snarky so apologies if they are taken that way 
It looks like a mix of LLB 2, 5 and a nod to T4 with the Electronics.
Personally I'd get rid of the whole drive type setup and just go for straight percentages of the ship per LBB 5. The maths isn't hard and could be tabulated if needed. Armour uses ship percentage so why not drives?
Fuel usage; J-drive looks good but why not say P-drive fuel usage is per year? Having to top up your powerplant each month seems a bit low-tech.
Computers. One of CT's main bugbears. Why bother specifying them at all? Why not just say that the bridge tonnage and cost includes enough computing capacity and software to operate the ship without weapons? You want to shoot things? buy a fire control computer, which just happens to match the old CT computer tonnages and costs (but includes software like LBB 5). Sensors have already been seperated out, which is something I do like.
Software. Linked to the computer comment, why do we need it all?
Why mention Manoeuvre if it costs nothing and has not rating?
Intellect. Surely this should be a reflection of the TL of the ship, not a seperate program?
Jump Control. Why do you have to buy the software seperately in order to use the ship? If the ship comes with Jump 6 then the avionics (both hardware and software) should already be there to handle Jump 6.
Evade. When the evade program is running who's flying the ship - the computer or the pilot? If this program is running can the pilot also dodge?
Fire control. Handled by the Fire Control computer (see above)- which comes with the required software.
Auto repair. Another program that seems to be taking things out of the hand of characters, not to mention the required mechanical element to do the actual repairs.
Various editions of Traveller have tried fudging the whole computer and software issue when the easiest and cleanest approach is the one adopted by T4 - get rid of them by assuming they are part of the bridge.
It looks like a mix of LLB 2, 5 and a nod to T4 with the Electronics.
Personally I'd get rid of the whole drive type setup and just go for straight percentages of the ship per LBB 5. The maths isn't hard and could be tabulated if needed. Armour uses ship percentage so why not drives?
Fuel usage; J-drive looks good but why not say P-drive fuel usage is per year? Having to top up your powerplant each month seems a bit low-tech.
Computers. One of CT's main bugbears. Why bother specifying them at all? Why not just say that the bridge tonnage and cost includes enough computing capacity and software to operate the ship without weapons? You want to shoot things? buy a fire control computer, which just happens to match the old CT computer tonnages and costs (but includes software like LBB 5). Sensors have already been seperated out, which is something I do like.
Software. Linked to the computer comment, why do we need it all?
Why mention Manoeuvre if it costs nothing and has not rating?
Intellect. Surely this should be a reflection of the TL of the ship, not a seperate program?
Jump Control. Why do you have to buy the software seperately in order to use the ship? If the ship comes with Jump 6 then the avionics (both hardware and software) should already be there to handle Jump 6.
Evade. When the evade program is running who's flying the ship - the computer or the pilot? If this program is running can the pilot also dodge?
Fire control. Handled by the Fire Control computer (see above)- which comes with the required software.
Auto repair. Another program that seems to be taking things out of the hand of characters, not to mention the required mechanical element to do the actual repairs.
Various editions of Traveller have tried fudging the whole computer and software issue when the easiest and cleanest approach is the one adopted by T4 - get rid of them by assuming they are part of the bridge.
Couldn't agree more with your comments Takei. The whole CT route was so horribly governed and controlled by 70's perception and take on computing and software. I *loathed* it and constantly had to modify it to make it approach something close to a more updated, "realistic" (SF) feel AND to get rid of the horrible clunkiness it introduced into play.Takei said:
The modules and computing power for all the additional controls should be tiny in comparison to the overall tonnage required for the actual control systems themselves. Why not just accept that everything comes with its own computing power relevant to it and bundle it together? I mean, what is the point of Jump-6 drive being fitted without it's own control systems and forcing a Jump-6 capable computer? Similar with Maneoeuvre. And "Intellect" for verbal commands is just an interface type (which stage from manual, verbal to neural/implant, perhaps). It's just an unhelpful complexity.
Can I ask, nay BEG, that the outdate, "legacy" computing/software rules throughout are simplified and the excessive software removed?
Gruffty the Hiver
Banded Mongoose
I agree. CT computers were so 1970s. T20 took a more modern approach to starship computers, but I think Mongoose Traveller could go one step further.
I think we need a Starship Computers thread.....
I think we need a Starship Computers thread.....
Bit baffled - why do you have engineering tables goings up to Z, but the hull tables just arbitrarily stop at L? It's like the rest of the system is High Guard and can cope with huge ships, but you've deliberately crippled the Hull Size tables to stop people from making them.
Also, you have an "Old Ships" table - why not have a "State of the Art" table too - as in, what happens if you buy ships at higher tech levels than they are normally built at? (actually, the sample ships don't even *have* an assumed TL). I'd guess that a TL 15 Scout would be better than a TL 12 Scout after all.
Also, you have an "Old Ships" table - why not have a "State of the Art" table too - as in, what happens if you buy ships at higher tech levels than they are normally built at? (actually, the sample ships don't even *have* an assumed TL). I'd guess that a TL 15 Scout would be better than a TL 12 Scout after all.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Takei said:
When you buy a computer... what do you get with it? Word procesing? no. Spreadsheet? no...
You get the COMPUTER... software is very complex and not 'one size fits all'. Plus there is no "MicroImperialSoft' to help improving user choice by reducing the number of choices they can make.
Every try to calculate a jump with a hand calculator... ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.
ParanoidGamer said:
You're talking about personal computers and I'm talking about vehicle computers. They're not the same thing.
ParanoidGamer said:
Quite right, but when you buy a car you don't specify what software you want to drive it with - it comes already loaded into the vehicle modules. Anyone skiled enough can go in afterwards and tinker with the programing, but it comes already installed in a new vehicle.
ParanoidGamer said:
So why haven't we got a fusion plant operating software package? Because it's already included in the fusion plant tonnage and cost.
When (in Traveller) I buy a ship I expect the navigation console to have the correct navigation softare installed. I expect the jump drive to have the necessary software installed so I can use it. The same goes for every system on the ship from maneouvre to life support. It should already be there - I shouldn't have to specify it.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Takei said:
but that is not a space/starship, and not how it's done in Traveller. You are buying a computer used in many diff applications/environments. Even IBM sold it's Mainframes/Midframes. You got the computer, terminals, and O/S, no software that was all extra so you got what you wanted (even if you just wanted programming languages to write your own software, you paid separate for it.
Takei said:
Straw Man Argument. Fusion plants are narrow applications, they don't have the huge amount of options any single type of spacecraft/starship hull can have. (before we confuse you... Traveller cannon: spaceships don't have Jump, stay in one system. Starships have Jump)
Any one Space/starship control computer can be used in a variety of ships, the starships having anywhere from Jump-1 to Jump-5 or so (depending on your version of Traveller). Spaceships don't have jump. both can be bough streamlined or not at the same tonnage. Are you saying the computer manufacturers are going to just write separate packages for every conceivable possible hull/engine/weapons configuration and THEN toss them in for free (or the same fixed cost no matter what is or isn't included).
Takei said:
The Navconsole is just an 'interface' to the computer. you don't buy a navconsole comp and it navigates the ship, a gunner console and it handles the guns, a Jump engine controller and it independently governs the engines. You have a computer with many interface devices each designed to their purposes (or are programmable to interface with a particular system).
A particular hull design (say in GURPS:T the Empress Marauva 200-ton Free trader, two turret ports, turrets sold seperately) has room for guns but doesn't come with the weapons, just the empty turrets in it. Do you want the hull to be one price whether or not you get the turrets? Do you want the comp to include software for guns that that aren't installed in the available turrets.
If your hull has 5 turrets and you only buy 2 guns, do you want to automatically get a custom package to handle what turrets you do have, or fare you expecting to automatically get the software to control all five possible turrets (having the total computer include the cost for software you don't need but automatically get as "part of the cost".
All you are saying is, you don't want to deal with the level of detail Traveller has typically had... so don't. In your game include the software in the cost of the comp.
