The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Could you post a picture here?
Book 2 v5
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Most of the good ones are inside TNE supplements.
The big ship in this front cover is the Clipper:
http://www.travellerbibliography.org/gdw-tne/BrilliantLances.html
The big ship in this front cover is the Clipper:
http://www.travellerbibliography.org/gdw-tne/BrilliantLances.html
Thread Resurrect
From the FFS3 thread, I ascertained a few chunks of info.
First, once we've reduced the bridge to 2% hull volume or whatever, we've got to take care of the avionics, sensors, comms, etc. I'd probably assume that 2% x hull volume would include the bare necessities of these... what that means, I don't know, but I bet they're still there.
note: simple sensors will be relatively easy in T5; its sensor benchmarks suggest a small number of targetted sensor suites (and commo suites) that will do the job nicely.
Second, the computer(s), in whatever form they take, will probably conform to the core T4 rules.
Third, a reasonable M-drive could displace 2% volume per G and cost around MCr2 per ton, and require 1 EP per G per 100 tons of ship. This would work by simply matching the drive letter with the power plant letter.
Fourth, a reasonable power plant would probably displace 2 tons per EP and cost around MCr2 to MCr3 per ton. The actual power production would include "extra" power for turret-mounted energy weapons.
Moving On
Jump Drive. High Guard set the standard, with (1+Jn)% hull volume, and MCr4 per ton.
Since Book 2's jump drives are half the price (or less!), it looks like they're simpler, and that's why they're bulkier. I suspect I can keep the basic jump drive formula from Book 2.
Hulls. This is necessarily messy.
Marc has suggested a list of 34 "standard hulls", naturally ranging from 100 to 3400 tons. Accomodating a full range of performance for all of these demands compromise.
Needless to say, the essential hulls -- 200, 400, 600, 800 -- should get the most attention, then the 100, 300, 1000, 1200, 1800, 2000, and 3000 ton hulls. The rest can fight over any remaining scraps, or make do.
From the FFS3 thread, I ascertained a few chunks of info.
First, once we've reduced the bridge to 2% hull volume or whatever, we've got to take care of the avionics, sensors, comms, etc. I'd probably assume that 2% x hull volume would include the bare necessities of these... what that means, I don't know, but I bet they're still there.
note: simple sensors will be relatively easy in T5; its sensor benchmarks suggest a small number of targetted sensor suites (and commo suites) that will do the job nicely.
Second, the computer(s), in whatever form they take, will probably conform to the core T4 rules.
Third, a reasonable M-drive could displace 2% volume per G and cost around MCr2 per ton, and require 1 EP per G per 100 tons of ship. This would work by simply matching the drive letter with the power plant letter.
Fourth, a reasonable power plant would probably displace 2 tons per EP and cost around MCr2 to MCr3 per ton. The actual power production would include "extra" power for turret-mounted energy weapons.
Moving On
Jump Drive. High Guard set the standard, with (1+Jn)% hull volume, and MCr4 per ton.
Since Book 2's jump drives are half the price (or less!), it looks like they're simpler, and that's why they're bulkier. I suspect I can keep the basic jump drive formula from Book 2.
Hulls. This is necessarily messy.
Marc has suggested a list of 34 "standard hulls", naturally ranging from 100 to 3400 tons. Accomodating a full range of performance for all of these demands compromise.
Needless to say, the essential hulls -- 200, 400, 600, 800 -- should get the most attention, then the 100, 300, 1000, 1200, 1800, 2000, and 3000 ton hulls. The rest can fight over any remaining scraps, or make do.
These statements scare me.
I guess I just need some clarity.
Specifically, is there going to be a FF&S 3?
If so, then why are you even looking at the Book 2 formulas? Is there impetus to replicate Book 2 exactly? or just the spirit and work flow?
I have no problem with the "Book 2 Jump Formula" as long as it's the same one as the "FF&S 3 Jump Formula".
Also, the "Since Book 2's jump drives are half the price (or less!), it looks like they're simpler, and that's why they're bulkier.". That's great, but, again, I assume we're going to have some "cheap, bulky Jump Drives" in FF&S 3 to match.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I think I made a convincing argument that a simplified Book 2 style design system can be derived from a robust and detailed FF&S-like system.
But arbitrary statements like "it looks like they're simpler and that's why they're bulkier", without any "actual foundation" bother me.
We already have an FF&S system. If a new one is planned, I imagine it's going to be more shining the system we have than a complete ground up rewrite.
And I assert that it's easier to create a B2 system from that than one out of whole cloth or one that's simply being hammered to fit in to the LBB B2 meme. I see no impetus to actually PUBLISH a new FF&S system, at least not initially, but that's no reason it should not be used and developed as the backbone of a B2 like system. That way, if and when a new FF&S system appears, you don't have redact and make excuses as to why you can't build "B2 ships with FF&S". That's simply insane. It's 5th generation. We're supposed to be beyond such silly mistakes and short sightedness.
In TNE, it's obvious they already had the bulk of FF&S done when they published the rule set, as the ships and weapons were designed using the system. So, even though unpublished, FF&S had bearing on the base rule set.
Of course, I also argue that combat needs to be done before FF&S.
If there is no intent at all to do an FF&S style system, then fine. Great.
But if there is, while it's a big chunk, I do hope you can appreciate my point of view that getting that system working as appropriate for the needs of the initial release is imperative, as FF&S pretty much documents the physical and economic realities of the universe.
The combination of Combat and FF&S is basically a treatise of Newtons 3 laws and how T5 interprets them, and every decision between the two will creep in to every aspect of anchoring the game to any realm of reality. The two aspects tells cites in rules How The Universe Works.
It tells us how hard things hit, how tough they are, and how much they cost.
If you don't intend to make an FF&S style system at all, then it's less of an issue. But if its planned, folks will want to be able to create the in game equipment (guns, trucks, and starships). And I think they have a reasonable expectation to be able to do so. Otherwise, you have a double standard or alternate universe where Game Gear != FF&S Gear.
But when I see statement like the above, it sounds to me that this is all being handwaved away. That there is no serious consideration of this issue. "Well time pressures...etc."
The RPG element has little to no effect on the combat, design, and equipment. The RPG element is trying to document how People Work, and that's a broad subject with many interpreations. But combat damage and design is based on more solid "real world" aspects: physics, materials science, etc. So, to me, there's little reason to redo an FF&S style system from scratch rather than just clean up what we already have.
So, to me "Time Pressure" doesn't hold real well on written material that needs some updating and editing and, most importantly, doesn't even need to be published day one.
Anyway...
I quote Douglas Adams: Don't Panic.
First, this is me posting fluff. I'm not in charge of developing ship design for T5. I'm dabbling.
And if some of this somehow finds its way into T5, it will only do so after first informing FFS3. I'd have to go through Scott and Marc and who knows who else before these things can be considered.
The formulae as they currently stand aren't sufficient for T5 anyhow; even if a simple system doesn't show it, Marc has already mandated that there has to be, at least, an underlying TL spectrum. And I'm pretty sure that Scott shares your understanding of what FFS is, and therefore it will be the baseline from which a simpler system is derived.
Second, combat is under development. Not by me. FFS3 development is lagging behind core game mechanics.
First, this is me posting fluff. I'm not in charge of developing ship design for T5. I'm dabbling.
And if some of this somehow finds its way into T5, it will only do so after first informing FFS3. I'd have to go through Scott and Marc and who knows who else before these things can be considered.
The formulae as they currently stand aren't sufficient for T5 anyhow; even if a simple system doesn't show it, Marc has already mandated that there has to be, at least, an underlying TL spectrum. And I'm pretty sure that Scott shares your understanding of what FFS is, and therefore it will be the baseline from which a simpler system is derived.
Second, combat is under development. Not by me. FFS3 development is lagging behind core game mechanics.
Good point. We want compatability, so that we don't get something like High Guard over here and Fifth Frontier War over there; at the same time, the point of a simple system is for usability with smaller starships. The point of a complex system is to let us create the billion-ton TL9 Star Raiders planetoid ship/arcology, pre-Maghiz Darrian Sloops, the Azhanti High Lightning, and whatnot.
To paraphrase Perl's motto: make easy things easy, and hard things possible.
To paraphrase Perl's motto: make easy things easy, and hard things possible.
Similar threads
