Cherry picking LBB2 versions...

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
These rules area a module, added stright on to High Guard.

Is there any more to the rules, or is that one page it?

I am doing additional background and fill in explinations for items when I get to final edit.

Let us know. I'd like to check it out.

The hit location chart bubble is a remnant of the reworked t20 version of this (which is next, this is sort of that in itself, can fit HG or that.)

I haven't got T20 (can't stand the d20 system), but the hit location chart bubble is straight out of TNE. It showed up in the TNE core rules, and it was used in Brilliant Lances as well. Hunter and Martin must have used it for T20 (and a good thing, too--it's a good hit location chart...albeit maybe a little too detailed).

I am going to do a re-edit of it using d. What is a good spread? 4-24?

Since you're reworking it for CT, I'd definitely only use D6. The problem, is, of course, that you won't get an even spread of probability using something like 4-24.

You could figure the probability and assign the locations appropriately, or you could use a D66 system--so that each location gets a even probability distribution.

I'd probably go with D66 if it were me.

I still wonder if all those hit locations are needed High Guard. That many hit locations seems like overkill for HG.

Even for LBB2, it may be too many hit locations.

You might want to combine that chart with the damage chart in HG--that might be cool--where each area on the chart corresponds with one of the damage chart descriptions in HG.

If it were me, I'd look hard at doing something like that.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
These rules area a module, added stright on to High Guard.

Is there any more to the rules, or is that one page it?

I am doing additional background and fill in explinations for items when I get to final edit.

Let us know. I'd like to check it out.

The hit location chart bubble is a remnant of the reworked t20 version of this (which is next, this is sort of that in itself, can fit HG or that.)

I haven't got T20 (can't stand the d20 system), but the hit location chart bubble is straight out of TNE. It showed up in the TNE core rules, and it was used in Brilliant Lances as well. Hunter and Martin must have used it for T20 (and a good thing, too--it's a good hit location chart...albeit maybe a little too detailed).

I am going to do a re-edit of it using d. What is a good spread? 4-24?

Since you're reworking it for CT, I'd definitely only use D6. The problem, is, of course, that you won't get an even spread of probability using something like 4-24.

You could figure the probability and assign the locations appropriately, or you could use a D66 system--so that each location gets a even probability distribution.

I'd probably go with D66 if it were me.

I still wonder if all those hit locations are needed High Guard. That many hit locations seems like overkill for HG.

Even for LBB2, it may be too many hit locations.

You might want to combine that chart with the damage chart in HG--that might be cool--where each area on the chart corresponds with one of the damage chart descriptions in HG.

If it were me, I'd look hard at doing something like that.

 

[robject]

Hmmm. Sigg, you've almost convinced me to use 20t bridges. Not quite, but almost.

 

[robject]

Hmmm. Sigg, you've almost convinced me to use 20t bridges. Not quite, but almost.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
We could also invent 250 dton and 500 dton bay weapons, you know....

Now there's a thought...

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
We could also invent 250 dton and 500 dton bay weapons, you know....

Now there's a thought...

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by robject:
Hmmm. Sigg, you've almost convinced me to use 20t bridges. Not quite, but almost.

20t bridge for all ships, with other bits added if the designer wants them.

Take the CIC for example. The rules I made up a while ago only took into account allowing ships to fire on more targets. How about also having a fighter direction component to it - or it could be a separate installation - the size of which depends upon the number of small craft it is going to direct.
Then there's a flag bridge to allow fleet coordination etc.
You'd soon probably pass the 2% figure, but each element would be clearrly identified.

And for bulk transports and liners you can stick with just the basic 20t bridge - frees up more space for cargo or passengers

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by robject:
Hmmm. Sigg, you've almost convinced me to use 20t bridges. Not quite, but almost.

20t bridge for all ships, with other bits added if the designer wants them.

Take the CIC for example. The rules I made up a while ago only took into account allowing ships to fire on more targets. How about also having a fighter direction component to it - or it could be a separate installation - the size of which depends upon the number of small craft it is going to direct.
Then there's a flag bridge to allow fleet coordination etc.
You'd soon probably pass the 2% figure, but each element would be clearrly identified.

And for bulk transports and liners you can stick with just the basic 20t bridge - frees up more space for cargo or passengers

 

[The Oz]

What I don't like about this "20 dton bridge only" idea is that it doesn't explain where the 20 dtons is used in the smaller CT designs (Type S, Type A, Type T). None of those ships have anything like 20 dtons of bridge space on their deckplans, so where is it? This concept implies that the actual control space for a Type S is the same size as the actual control space for a Type C, yet the deckplans are very different.

This is why I've always used the idea that the "bridge tonnage" included things like access corridors, storage spaces, and the basic number of airlocks. Designers could always add more of these things but the "bridge" tonnage included just enough to get by. As ships got over 1000 dtons they needed more of the other things (airlocks, corridors, etc) to get by so the tonnage allocated to "bridge" increased.

 

[The Oz]

What I don't like about this "20 dton bridge only" idea is that it doesn't explain where the 20 dtons is used in the smaller CT designs (Type S, Type A, Type T). None of those ships have anything like 20 dtons of bridge space on their deckplans, so where is it? This concept implies that the actual control space for a Type S is the same size as the actual control space for a Type C, yet the deckplans are very different.

This is why I've always used the idea that the "bridge tonnage" included things like access corridors, storage spaces, and the basic number of airlocks. Designers could always add more of these things but the "bridge" tonnage included just enough to get by. As ships got over 1000 dtons they needed more of the other things (airlocks, corridors, etc) to get by so the tonnage allocated to "bridge" increased.

 

[The Oz]

Speaking of 250-dton and 500-dton bays.....

If you look here:

New HG weapons mounts

you can see some suggestions for new weapons mounts in HG; going from 2 dton turrets to 500 dton bays, for all HG weapons. I include extended HG combat tables for these weapons, since some of them go up to factor-E.

 

[The Oz]

Speaking of 250-dton and 500-dton bays.....

If you look here:

New HG weapons mounts

you can see some suggestions for new weapons mounts in HG; going from 2 dton turrets to 500 dton bays, for all HG weapons. I include extended HG combat tables for these weapons, since some of them go up to factor-E.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
What I don't like about this "20 dton bridge only" idea is that it doesn't explain where the 20 dtons is used in the smaller CT designs (Type S, Type A, Type T). None of those ships have anything like 20 dtons of bridge space on their deckplans, so where is it? This concept implies that the actual control space for a Type S is the same size as the actual control space for a Type C, yet the deckplans are very different.

Perhaps what's really needed is a small ship bridge

This is why I've always used the idea that the "bridge tonnage" included things like access corridors, storage spaces, and the basic number of airlocks. Designers could always add more of these things but the "bridge" tonnage included just enough to get by. As ships got over 1000 dtons they needed more of the other things (airlocks, corridors, etc) to get by so the tonnage allocated to "bridge" increased.

A lot of these can also be assumed to be derived from stateroom and drive tonnage.
One thing I don't allow for LBB2 is dual occupancy of staterooms except in dire emergency, thus the more crew the larger ship has, the greater the tonnage for corridors etc. derived from staterooms.

When I do deckplans I take 1 ton per 4 tons of component size to be corridor or communal area:
stateroom - 4t - 3t room, 1t corridor etc.
bridge - 20t - 15t avionics/controls etc., 5t corridor etc.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
What I don't like about this "20 dton bridge only" idea is that it doesn't explain where the 20 dtons is used in the smaller CT designs (Type S, Type A, Type T). None of those ships have anything like 20 dtons of bridge space on their deckplans, so where is it? This concept implies that the actual control space for a Type S is the same size as the actual control space for a Type C, yet the deckplans are very different.

Perhaps what's really needed is a small ship bridge

This is why I've always used the idea that the "bridge tonnage" included things like access corridors, storage spaces, and the basic number of airlocks. Designers could always add more of these things but the "bridge" tonnage included just enough to get by. As ships got over 1000 dtons they needed more of the other things (airlocks, corridors, etc) to get by so the tonnage allocated to "bridge" increased.

A lot of these can also be assumed to be derived from stateroom and drive tonnage.
One thing I don't allow for LBB2 is dual occupancy of staterooms except in dire emergency, thus the more crew the larger ship has, the greater the tonnage for corridors etc. derived from staterooms.

When I do deckplans I take 1 ton per 4 tons of component size to be corridor or communal area:
stateroom - 4t - 3t room, 1t corridor etc.
bridge - 20t - 15t avionics/controls etc., 5t corridor etc.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Speaking of 250-dton and 500-dton bays.....

If you look here:

New HG weapons mounts

you can see some suggestions for new weapons mounts in HG; going from 2 dton turrets to 500 dton bays, for all HG weapons. I include extended HG combat tables for these weapons, since some of them go up to factor-E.

Saved to hard drive.

Thanks Oz

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Speaking of 250-dton and 500-dton bays.....

If you look here:

New HG weapons mounts

you can see some suggestions for new weapons mounts in HG; going from 2 dton turrets to 500 dton bays, for all HG weapons. I include extended HG combat tables for these weapons, since some of them go up to factor-E.

Saved to hard drive.

Thanks Oz

 

[The Oz]

Sigg: A small ship bridge is not a bad idea; one of the few things I liked from the MT design sequences was the smaller size of the control spaces for starships.

OTOH, I don't want to "break" the CT ship designs, if we can avoid it. Balancing these two aspects (rationalizing ship design while not obsoleting the existing ships) is a hard job.

 

[The Oz]

Sigg: A small ship bridge is not a bad idea; one of the few things I liked from the MT design sequences was the smaller size of the control spaces for starships.

OTOH, I don't want to "break" the CT ship designs, if we can avoid it. Balancing these two aspects (rationalizing ship design while not obsoleting the existing ships) is a hard job.

 

[mike wightman]

At the risk of derailing my own thread

- I've been looking at how GURPS Traveller ship design handles the bridge.

In Starships there are two types of bridge:
a 2.5 ton basic bridge
and a 7-5 ton command bridge (it gets smaller as TL advances)
In GT:Interstellar Wars there are three types:
a 1.5 ton small bridge - this is restricted to small starships with limited jump range, 3 crew stations
a 2.5 ton standard bridge, 5 crew stations
and a 5 ton command bridge, 10 crew stations.

Could this be adapted to CT, perhaps by having a 4 ton small bridge, 10 ton standard bridge, and a 20 ton command bridge?

 

[mike wightman]

At the risk of derailing my own thread

- I've been looking at how GURPS Traveller ship design handles the bridge.

In Starships there are two types of bridge:
a 2.5 ton basic bridge
and a 7-5 ton command bridge (it gets smaller as TL advances)
In GT:Interstellar Wars there are three types:
a 1.5 ton small bridge - this is restricted to small starships with limited jump range, 3 crew stations
a 2.5 ton standard bridge, 5 crew stations
and a 5 ton command bridge, 10 crew stations.

Could this be adapted to CT, perhaps by having a 4 ton small bridge, 10 ton standard bridge, and a 20 ton command bridge?