| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | So hows about a hull rating links in some way to a MAX speed the ship can do without shaking apart. |
I think that would only apply in situations where you are specifically increasing the ship's armor, and nothing else. I've always maintained that the Hull rating isn't just armor, it's a system wide increase of the ship's ability to resist damage of all types, and that resistance can take on multiple forms. If we are linking a ship's cargo capacity to its lift-mass ratio, there are things that can be done to increase the hull strength without adding appreciably to the mass. |
I was more on about a max speed possibility for the ship based somewhat on its hull rating.. or something else. So we can't have 3d hull'ed ships zipping around at space of 10+... though fighters are made for that, so they get a pass.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's more the 5d and 6d vessels at 9+ speed that annoy me
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | I was more on about a max speed possibility for the ship based somewhat on its hull rating.. or something else. So we can't have 3d hull'ed ships zipping around at space of 10+... though fighters are made for that, so they get a pass. |
I agree. The best place to look is at real-life examples. On the road, semi-trucks have huge engines that generate a lot of power, but they don't necessarily apply that power in the form of quick acceleration and high top-end speed. On the other hand, a sports car might have even less actual horsepower and torque than a semi-truck, but can blow said truck away in terms of actual performance. That doesn't mean that said sports car can haul anything like the weight that a semi can handle. It's two different vehicles designed for two different purposes.
The closest real-life equivalent of something like the Millennium Falcon would be the moonshiner rigs from down south. They were stock cars with powerful engines and reinforced suspensions that allowed them to go fast and handle well on or off-road while carrying a comparatively light cargo load. Little or no attention was paid to the exterior because the idea was to have a car that no one would look twice at. Still, as capable as they were, they weren't a match for dedicated racing vehicles that sacrificed everything else for speed and handling.
I almost wonder if Space Transports should be in a separate class all by themselves. I've been working on a new Scale Modifier System and trying to figure out a way for Starfighters and Walkers to be in the same basic scale class while remaining distinct based on their design differences. The basic idea I am thinking of is three different scale classes on the same basic level in the scale, but each different based on their design and mission. Starfighters would be fast and nimble (bonus to maneuverability), Walkers would be slow and heavily armored (bonus to Hull), while Transports would be both slow and relatively unarmored (no bonus at all) but able to haul much larger amounts of cargo. Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hows bout make a new scale between fighter and walker for freighters..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the ohter hand, a light ship would need less thrust to achieve a certain acceleration. A 'flying brick' would need more.
I see no problem with low hull values and high speed. Quite the oposite actually. As pointed out, I have a larger problem with 6D hull shipps zipping around...
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | On the ohter hand, a light ship would need less thrust to achieve a certain acceleration. A 'flying brick' would need more.
I see no problem with low hull values and high speed. Quite the oposite actually. As pointed out, I have a larger problem with 6D hull shipps zipping around... |
Very true. The only way around that would be to pay an obscene amount of money for it. The most blatant example is the Millennium Falcon stats in Cracken's Threat Dossier, but of course by that time, the Falcon is operating under a special government exemption to get around all the illegal gear she's carrying, plus she just got out of a complete overhaul from a military shipyard: facts that most gamers tend to ignore when they start thinking about what a ship is truly capable of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So hows about we go with an inversion to the speed/hull.
Ships 2d-2d+2 hull max speed 12
Ships 3d-3d+2 hull max speed 10
ships 4d-4d+2 hull max speed 8
ships 5d-5d+2 hull max speed 6
ships of 6d or greater hull max speed 4
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | So hows about we go with an inversion to the speed/hull.
Ships 2d-2d+2 hull max speed 12
Ships 3d-3d+2 hull max speed 10
ships 4d-4d+2 hull max speed 8
ships 5d-5d+2 hull max speed 6
ships of 6d or greater hull max speed 4 |
You could also do something along the line of a points pool, where a ship can only have a certain amount of pips distributed between the ship's basic stats, such as Hull, Space, Cargo Capacity, etc, so that the more points they put in any one category, the less they have available to put into the others. In terms of modifying ships, you could be able to purchase extra points to make more modifications possible, but the purchase price would slope up per point purchased, until you finally reach the point where purchasing more points is just no longer feasible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That sounds good... that way there aren't any "no you can't do that" points, but you have difficulty creating overpowered ships.
Meesa like.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Im not much into putting arbitrary limitations because of 'game balance' or whatnot.
Why cant you have a faster engine because you have a high maneuverability? The 'pips' idea could be the limitation of a certain power core though. Power core X can only power Y 'pips' of power distributed between Engines, Maneuverability, Weapons, Shields, etc.
Hull rating is more or less the result of size, structure and armour. All of these adds total mass. For simplicitys sake lets not differ between these three factors. The total Hull rating IS the ships effective mass. If you have a large ship, or a smaller well armoured makes no difference (holds up decently as long as we are talking light freighters).
The actual speed of a ship could then be a factor of Engine output and Hull. The powercore then determines the other 'pips', including the possible engine output.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Why cant you have a faster engine because you have a high maneuverability? The 'pips' idea could be the limitation of a certain power core though. Power core X can only power Y 'pips' of power distributed between Engines, Maneuverability, Weapons, Shields, etc. |
Excellent idea. A rule like this would also allow the introduction of the power control rules introduced in the Far Orbit Project.
| ZzaphodD wrote: | Hull rating is more or less the result of size, structure and armour. All of these adds total mass. For simplicitys sake lets not differ between these three factors. The total Hull rating IS the ships effective mass. If you have a large ship, or a smaller well armoured makes no difference (holds up decently as long as we are talking light freighters).
The actual speed of a ship could then be a factor of Engine output and Hull. The powercore then determines the other 'pips', including the possible engine output. |
I'm inclined to agree for simplicity's sake, but I maintain my position that other factors also come into play with a ship's Hull rating that wouldn't necessarily add to the ship's overall mass. Examples might include enhanced damage control systems, multiple redundant backups (ala Mon Cal cruisers), structural integrity shielding (Star Trek type, or a modified version of the magnetic seal). These would all be systems that would contribute to a Hull rating without adding a great deal to mass. Power consumption, on the other hand, would be a different story.
Perhaps a middle ground could be used. If, as you said, the ship's speed is a factor of engine output vs. hull, then these additional systems I've described could also detract from engine output in the form of power draw from the engines as opposed to added mass that must be compensated for by thrust. After all, the power to run all these additional systems has to come from somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Why cant you have a faster engine because you have a high maneuverability? The 'pips' idea could be the limitation of a certain power core though. Power core X can only power Y 'pips' of power distributed between Engines, Maneuverability, Weapons, Shields, etc. |
Excellent idea. A rule like this would also allow the introduction of the power control rules introduced in the Far Orbit Project.
| ZzaphodD wrote: | Hull rating is more or less the result of size, structure and armour. All of these adds total mass. For simplicitys sake lets not differ between these three factors. The total Hull rating IS the ships effective mass. If you have a large ship, or a smaller well armoured makes no difference (holds up decently as long as we are talking light freighters).
The actual speed of a ship could then be a factor of Engine output and Hull. The powercore then determines the other 'pips', including the possible engine output. |
I'm inclined to agree for simplicity's sake, but I maintain my position that other factors also come into play with a ship's Hull rating that wouldn't necessarily add to the ship's overall mass. Examples might include enhanced damage control systems, multiple redundant backups (ala Mon Cal cruisers), structural integrity shielding (Star Trek type, or a modified version of the magnetic seal). These would all be systems that would contribute to a Hull rating without adding a great deal to mass. Power consumption, on the other hand, would be a different story.
Perhaps a middle ground could be used. If, as you said, the ship's speed is a factor of engine output vs. hull, then these additional systems I've described could also detract from engine output in the form of power draw from the engines as opposed to added mass that must be compensated for by thrust. After all, the power to run all these additional systems has to come from somewhere. |
Well, additional systems add mass too. If that explanation is not good enough, lets assume that 'stock ships' have a standard amount of redunant systems, at least for light freighters. Warships/Starfighters would naturally have more rendundancy, which would explain the starfighters exceptional hull values given their small mass and size.
Hehe, however one tries to do this you end up with something starting to look like a rather advanced starship constructions system.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | Well, additional systems add mass too. If that explanation is not good enough, lets assume that 'stock ships' have a standard amount of redunant systems, at least for light freighters. Warships/Starfighters would naturally have more rendundancy, which would explain the starfighters exceptional hull values given their small mass and size.
Hehe, however one tries to do this you end up with something starting to look like a rather advanced starship constructions system. |
That makes sense. I suppose we could just hedge things a little bit and say that the mass of the hardware for the equipment combined with the energy draw to operate it adds up to the equivalent weight / power draw that one would get from just piling on an equivalent amount of armor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So from there, as far as limitations, instead of a points pool, we could do a dice pool, allowing a certain number of dice to be added to ship systems, total, and to go beyond that, you would have to purchase additional dice slots, but the purchase of additional slots gets more and more expensive the more you buy, until you reach a point where you can have something like the Millennium Falcon in Cracken's Threat Dossier (Space 11, HD x1/2, Hull 6D, Shields 3D, Maneuverability 2D, plus 100 metric tons cargo capacity) with the services of a high-end naval shipyard.
Alternately, you could gain additional upgrade dice in trade for mandatory mishaps; things that go wrong with the ship because whatever you've upgraded has exceeded the design capacity of the ship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
As mentioned above the starship construction rules i have from that magusinvictus guy does some of what is being discussed.. if anyone is interested, PM me.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
