| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Or reliability. The Falcon is the example at the opposite end of the spectrum: high performance with no loss in cargo capacity, but so breakdown-prone that most are amazed the ship can even move.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't cost the same as the stock vehicle did though, does it?
And it doesn't perform as well as a car that used the same level of technology and did trade off space or fuel efficiency does it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Or reliability. The Falcon is the example at the opposite end of the spectrum: high performance with no loss in cargo capacity, but so breakdown-prone that most are amazed the ship can even move. |
Yes that would be another example of a trade off.
Long ago I owned a Triumph sports car. Very sporty and fun to drive. BUT, it was much more expensive to maintain. As an example, it had a dual carburetor instead of a single. The two air filters required changing at 1500 miles instead of 3000 miles. And each air filter cost 2x what the single filter on a domestic vehicle cost. So 8 times the cost for air filter maintenance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There has to be a way to insert ship reliability as a GM tool. Maybe as some variation on the long distance movement rules, where the longer a ship goes without spending a certain amount in credits and/or CP on its upkeep, it takes gradually increasing damage as ship systems begin to break down. The Luxury Upgrade option from D20 Saga used a similar system...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | It doesn't cost the same as the stock vehicle did though, does it?
And it doesn't perform as well as a car that used the same level of technology and did trade off space or fuel efficiency does it? |
Of course it doesn't cost the same. But it does everything the same or better than the stock vehicle.
I'm a little confused: are you addressing/rebutting my claim that speed and maneuverability does not necessarily cut into cargo space?
Or are you saying that there must be some kind of trade off, even if that trade off is 100% wrapped up in cost?
If the latter, then we already agree.
As for performing the same as one that did trade-off cargo space, I suppose we could make a direct comparison between my car (a Camaro) and its sister car of the same year (a Coervette).
These cars have the same powertrain (engine, transmission), but configured differently. The Corvette' transmission is located at the rear axle, moving a significant amount of weight to the rear, helping to balance the car better. The Corvette is also about 150 lbs lighter.
On the other hand, my car seats 2 additional passengers and has about as much trunk space.
I have never raced against a Corvette that is the same technology level as my car (same "age") but I have raced one that was one level more advanced (one generation newer, or 8 years in this case).
My car is faster than the newer one, despite being heavier.
I cannot comment on it's handling/maneuverability compared to that Corvette because we didnt get a chance to explore those aspects, but its obvious my car is more agile than it's stock configuration would be.
I have also raced a Challenger (same "kind" of car) that was 15 years newer (two tech levels more advanced) than my car. Blew his doors right off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | Or reliability. The Falcon is the example at the opposite end of the spectrum: high performance with no loss in cargo capacity, but so breakdown-prone that most are amazed the ship can even move. |
Yes that would be another example of a trade off.
Long ago I owned a Triumph sports car. Very sporty and fun to drive. BUT, it was much more expensive to maintain. As an example, it had a dual carburetor instead of a single. The two air filters required changing at 1500 miles instead of 3000 miles. And each air filter cost 2x what the single filter on a domestic vehicle cost. So 8 times the cost for air filter maintenance. |
But we are talking about modification of an existing ship, not engineering a new ship out of the parts from the old one, right?
As for maintenance on my car, which is more analogous to what I am saying, it is true: when I need to replace an upgraded part, I have to buy the upgraded part. But there is this to consider: OEM parts usually cost way more than "upgraded" parts.
The reason that OEMs can do this is because they say using an "upgraded" part will void your warranty. So they attempt to monopolize the replacement parts market.
If you wanted similar realism in your SWU, you might (depending on which market a character is shopping in) offer upgraded parts at a lower cost than factory parts. In many cases, the higher performing part will improve function AND reliability simultaneously.
There is a fuel pump available for my car, for example, that addresses some of the engineering flaws in the factory model. Thank God mine still runs well (it's quite old at this point, but hasn't given me trouble). The cost of the upgrade compares nicely with the cost of "OEM equivalent" parts.
Now, you do get to a point where keeping the thing running is a delicate juggling act. My friend has such a vehicle. It is so heavily modified that it is scary to drive.
He also has about 10x the money into that thing as what it cost new.
Incidentally, it gives up no cargo capacity, either.
With respect to the Millenium Falcon, we have to remember a few things:
The stock ship is unremarkable in terms of performance (it's an F150, basically), while the Falcon is THE fastest ship in the galaxy (an F150 that is faster than the fastest race car in the world).
I'd say it does pretry well in terms of reliability all things considered. Or do you feel that a player should be able to mod his ship up to or beyond the Millennium Falcon?
At what point do we want to introduce reliability issues? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | I'm a little confused: are you addressing/rebutting my claim that speed and maneuverability does not necessarily cut into cargo space?
Or are you saying that there must be some kind of trade off, even if that trade off is 100% wrapped up in cost? |
Both really. You can keep the same cargo space by buying better, more expensive equipment to a point. But in the end, you will be outperformed by a vehicle that devotes that space and mass to performance enhancing modifications. Because there are tradeoffs and not just in purchase and maintenance costs. There's a reason that stock car races mandate using stock cars and that the fastest race cars aren't designed to carry a driver, 3 passengers, and a couple of suitcases in the trunk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. I'm not contesting the fact that vehicles are purpose built. I believe I addressed exactly that with my Lamborghini analogy in the earlier post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | There has to be a way to insert ship reliability as a GM tool. Maybe as some variation on the long distance movement rules, where the longer a ship goes without spending a certain amount in credits and/or CP on its upkeep, it takes gradually increasing damage as ship systems begin to break down. The Luxury Upgrade option from D20 Saga used a similar system... |
I introduced a reliability mechanic in my weapons revamp. You may find something that gets the wheels turning.
I'd link you, but my phone signal isn't reliable right now and I'd be surprised if this post makes it through.
The gist is that the more premium the weapon (including modifications) the more expensive it is to keep it reliable. BUT, cheaper (in this case, commercial grade) weaponry and parts are available which have a lower initial cost but increase the maintenance frequency (and thereby indirectly increase maintenance cost).
EDIT: Here is the link. It's the last post.
https://rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7091&sid=dbf18494cd01f3608b5e989909541d69
Last edited by Naaman on Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1829
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the best way to maybe get some pointers is to look to the logistics of major events of ww2.
lets look at the arctic convoys, these ships were not overloaded, but loaded often to the max, would light and max make a differnece yes, but could they be over loaded......yes and no, most times a ship is given an absolute max load of cargo not for performance issues, but in order not to simply roll over and sink, loose stability.
even a ship loaded withing load allowence can by accidant have the cargo shift and this can topple the ship and cause a roll over and sinking, it has happened before and will again.
Then comes the aspects of "over load" with warships packed with operational load, in addiotn they now ferry ground forces, have added provisions for these and to a great degree cargo for the added ground crew they ferry.
What I suspect with the load max is that this is a load max, and that there should be a min/max speed, maeuver etc.
like a speed 8 ship with 50 tons max, this maybe has a speed 6 fully loaded, and 9 empty, but operaties witin a 15-35 ton average and then has a speed of 8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's not a bad idea, but I wonder if instead (or in addition to) the speed being affected, the maneuverability should be affected.
As I understand it "speed" refers to a ship's maximum velocity, and is not a direct indicator of it's acceleration (which would be greatly affected by cargo load, while max velocity may not, depending on conditions).
So instead of cutting the speed stat, we could say that changing speed by one category takes twice as long (two rounds, instead of one) when a ship is overloaded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's why I went with both for my idea, but rather than penalizing Maneuverability, I increased the Difficulty of any maneuvers. Speaking from experience, heavily loaded vehicles handle fine in a straight line (if a little sluggishly); the problems come in when you try to suddenly change direction.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you are saying that maneuverability is at play even in a straight line? If that's how you interpret it, it makes more sense to change difficulties.
I was defaulting to the notion of maneuverability only being a factor when a change of direction was attempted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1829
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Driving slow with a heavily loaded car isn't all that bad, maneuver are fine, once you gain speed the maneuverability suffer.
I am wondering if maybe cargo over load should play a part in this.
a ship with speed 6 is over loaded then manuver will suffer above a certain speed, maybe even as low as above 2D
and then just look to max and minimum speed, reduce 1D per 2 Speed.
So a over loaded speed 6 ship with a full load suffer a -2D to maeuver at 6 in speed.
Naturally acceleration can be slowers, but for the sake of maneuver I think this makes more sense.
The higher the speed the more severe the maneuver penalty is.
And we could say that a ship can carry +10% added load with no effect.
at 15% and up we have the reduction.
And that a ship can not in any way carry more than +50% load, this simply due to the fact it may not be actual room for all the added cargo and the crew and the consumables and interior and so on.
so to me finding a speed scale where loades between +15% and +50% gives maneuver penalty.
I can out of the blue and without having thought it through though maybe suggest 1/2 speed with no penalty, then -1D pr 2 speed above this until max.
a speed 6 ship in this case can travel even with +50% at speed 3 and suffer no penalties, once the speed is up the penalty is -1D pr 2 speed.
so the pilot increses his speed from 3 to 4, he now suffer 2D penalty.
this can in some cases reduce manuver to 0D and even to a negative -D, this negative will be rolled and added to a piloting difficulty......
so he got a -2D penalty to his manuver, his ship is shaking an shaking, and can't steered at all, his total manuver is 1D -2D = -1D this is now hi penalty to piloting skill and his ship IS in fact a flying brick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | So you are saying that maneuverability is at play even in a straight line? If that's how you interpret it, it makes more sense to change difficulties.
I was defaulting to the notion of maneuverability only being a factor when a change of direction was attempted. |
I’m taking advantage of a loophole in the wording of the Movement Speed rules, specifically that a pilot flying a ship at Cautious or Cruising Speed in Very Easy, Easy or Moderate Terrain doesn’t have to make a piloting roll. With no piloting roll, there is no Difficulty to modify, so the result is that an overloaded ship will be sluggish, but so long as it stays in Moderate or less terrain, limits itself to Cruising Speed or lower, and doesn’t make any maneuvers that would require a roll, it can still fly.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
