Dialing Back ACS

[robject]

During its conception, Marc's philosophy for Traveller5 was "let a thousand daisies bloom... and then ruthlessly cut them down".

Yeah, that's a quote, and I remember it from a long time ago. He didn't keep saying that, but I kept it in my head.

Time to ruthlessly cut down ACS, for some value of "ruthless". I expect that the results of my thread here will be somewhat less than ruthless. But given that I know this to be true, starting out on a strong note can only help.

So without further ado, I will be trolling my way through ACS, building a list of suggestions of what to dial back.

Because I'm posting this, that means all of your comments ought to be welcome. What usually happens is that some people for whom I have a steadfast fondness and appreciation [Craig] have different opinions than me, and I get defensive, although I have improved my attitude slowly over time. I will strive to not be defensive.

Begin.

 

[dalthor]

For practical purposes, haven't been in a game in quite a while - GURPS was my last real gaming session, and that is about 4 years ago.

I've played around with T5 combat since I first got access, mainly to see how functional it would be. There is good and bad, like anything else we see. Waiting for errata and updates to be integrated into T5.1 before I can do more than experiment.

In my head I see starship combat and ship design as being tightly integrated - each has a significant effect on the other.

Consider our own weapons versus armor one-upmanship over the last few centuries, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Have not been able to reconcile that very easily with any Traveller system.

I can make a ship virtually invulnerable to lasers and missiles, but it is pretty useless as anything other than a shield.

In my experience, missiles are the best offense.

Beam weapons are relatively lame as weapons. As point defenses, beams are much more viable versus missiles, so they have their uses.

Globes are pretty damn good, until you overload them.

The hard part of any space combat is getting out of the surface and atmospheric mode we humans currently know, and accounting for an environment with extremely good sightlines, delta-V and maneuverability in vacuum critical, and EXTREME distances possible.

What weapons and defenses would work well?

What is the effective range of a missile when you factor in delta-v and maneuverability? At some point is it useless to use a missile - you can boost it to massive speeds, but can it still turn with the target?

How will beams overcome armor, especially reflective or ablative coatings?

I think the closer you are, the quicker and deadlier combat will become.

Start with the basics, and go from there.

 

[robject]

1. THE PRIMARY USE OF SHIP *DESIGN* IS COMBAT

In my head I see starship combat and ship design as being tightly integrated

Two things. No, one. No, two.

First, you're right, and yet it's not necessarily so for Traveller. The way we record a design depends on how we use a ship in combat.

Second though, the design itself tends to always look like ... like we're building ships for Traveller. We all know the design constraints which are part of Traveller and help define Traveller.

So, in discussing combat, I think you have actually put this thread on a good path.


2. Analogy: HUNTING FOR SPORT versus HUNTING FOR FOOD

I can make a ship virtually invulnerable to lasers and missiles, but it is pretty useless as anything other than a shield.

In my experience, missiles are the best offense.

And we are in game theory, but more narrowly we are in Traveller Theory. Marc's vision defines how things really ought to work in Traveller. Otherwise, we have some other game.

So the first question to ask is: what does Marc want combat to be like?

He has expressed more than one opinion on this. We all know and love Mayday, which is "Hunting for Sport". But what Marc has also said in recent years with Traveller5 is that he likes the "rock-paper-scissors" decision-making process in ship design and combat. THAT sort of sounds like "Hunting for Food".

I think the closer you are, the quicker and deadlier combat will become.

Start with the basics, and go from there.

Can't argue with either of those.

 

[kilemall]

To extend the analogy, we should think of the starship design/combat/mercantile/exploring/adventuring relationships as an adventure biome, a habitat of 'stuff I do matters at least to me and mine'.

As such you cannot divorce the space shooting from the emotional economy of the game.

 

[robject]

As such you cannot divorce the space shooting from the emotional economy of the game.

And I think we can take a page from Traveller's player combat philosophy (one which would please Craig as well): combat ought to be deadly.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Tee-hee-hee.

And I think we can take a page from Traveller's player combat philosophy (one which would please Craig as well): combat ought to be deadly.

Correct you are sir!

I agree, if combat is not deadly then characters don't have any challenge, they will gleefully get in fights with anyone. If it is deadly they will at least think about other avenues...may still fight but it should slow their roll a bit.

EDIT: Also, second Dalthor's comments!

 

[robject]

A BUM RUSH THROUGH ACS

Lacking the time to do it in detail, I'll instead post a hasty scurry-through and see what looks like it should be amputated or spindled.

Hull Cost - display Unstreamlined only, and reduce the others to formulas based on U.

Configuration - Move the detailed effects to Friction, Agility, and Stability to an OPERATIONAL section of the ship design rules.

Jump Fields - move the calculations (Safe Distance and Interference) into the TEXT part of the ship rules - preferably group these sorts of things in an OPERATIONAL section of the ship design rules.

A/ Hull Armor Layers - reduce to its formula. No need for table.

Armor Layers, Anti-Layers, Coatings - disperse to separate components perhaps, or else turn this into a full-fledged mini-maker and follow the same build rules as with sensors, weapons, and defenses.

Drives - The new "tons" column bothers me: namely, the /2 /3 and /4.

Drives Table 11 - Fix the Antimatter column... and perhaps replace this entire table with their volume formulas.

Fuel - this page is still difficult to decode

Sensors - subordinate somehow so that people don't sweat these unless they want to.

Gather All Tables. Put all of the design-specific table data together as per CT High Guard, and shrink tables into formula where possible to minimize the total page count required for the tables.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

*shakes fist* Oooo, My Patron.

A BUM RUSH THROUGH ACS

Lacking the time to do it in detail, I'll instead post a hasty scurry-through and see what looks like it should be amputated or spindled.

Hull Cost - display Unstreamlined only, and reduce the others to formulas based on U.

Configuration - Move the detailed effects to Friction, Agility, and Stability to an OPERATIONAL section of the ship design rules.

Jump Fields - move the calculations (Safe Distance and Interference) into the TEXT part of the ship rules - preferably group these sorts of things in an OPERATIONAL section of the ship design rules.

A/ Hull Armor Layers - reduce to its formula. No need for table.

Armor Layers, Anti-Layers, Coatings - disperse to separate components perhaps, or else turn this into a full-fledged mini-maker and follow the same build rules as with sensors, weapons, and defenses.

Drives - The new "tons" column bothers me: namely, the /2 /3 and /4.

Drives Table 11 - Fix the Antimatter column... and perhaps replace this entire table with their volume formulas.

Fuel - this page is still difficult to decode

Sensors - subordinate somehow so that people don't sweat these unless they want to.

Gather All Tables. Put all of the design-specific table data together as per CT High Guard, and shrink tables into formula where possible to minimize the total page count required for the tables.

Will you please for the love all that is holy please stop trying to reduce my beloved ACS into HG? Please. I do not want to do math and formulas to build my ships. I mean I get the maths nerds want nothing but formulas, but for crying out loud can the rest of us get some love?

ACS is fine! If you are gonna spend calories on something try and fix something that need it, like say getting BCS up to snuff. Leave ACS as is, it is fine and doesn't need any damned trimming.

Yeeesh!

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

You are messing with my CrImps, man...

Seriously, Rob as a T5 Licensee, will you stop messing with my production?

I already have redone the HMS Herald like three to five times because of monkeying with ACS. Dude, I do not need the hassle of yet more redesign and a profusion of newly made errata because between my getting books out the damned design system changed...again and renders my designs broken.

Go back to messing with BCS and I promise to be nicer, or something.

 

[dalthor]

One big simplification for ACS would be the removal of tables for drives and power plants. How, you ask?

Make them a straight percentage of hull size to get drive-1. Multiply by the rating to get a final size.

For example, make a jump drive 2% of hull size for jump-1. It would be 4% for J-2, 6% for J-3, and so on. [[ I already tried something like this in my "new" ship design paradigm, I simply didn't take it far enough in the release 0.78 version I posted. ]]

Fuel pretty much works as is, so I don't see much change needed there.

Have your tech level stage effects (TLSE) modify that base percentage.

All of this means you'd have one short page for the formulae, and drop several pages that are currently based on tables.

You can still set a minimum size guideline. For example, antimatter has a minimum size of 30 tons IIRC. Size is percentage or base, whichever is larger size.

The minimum size is based on the introductory TL. Allow TLSE to reduce (or increase) that minimum. Early versions work, they are just larger to get the same effect.

Efficiency can get better or worse, but shouldn't keep it from working. It simply takes more or less fuel to do the job. OH, jeez, that means it is actually FUEL efficiency - why didn't I think of that before? The current efficiency and fuel columns say the same thing in two different ways, but the efficiency column is also interpreted to mean anything less than 100% is non-functional.

:rant::CoW:I mention that because the current RAW means an early jump-1 drive will never work. In fact, it will only work once it becomes standard. Oh, and it will never become standard, because IT NEVER WORKED BEFORE EXCEPT IN THEORY. Or some crap like that.

Also, TLSE should be automatic. A drive built at base TL+4 should get the TL+4 effects. If you want to install it in a higher or lower TL hull, assume an adapter exists -- hell, we can do that now. If you want to get picky, require the installation be done by the higher TL shipyard or whatever.

Determine price on the FINAL tonnage of the item, not the base tonnage. That means at TL+4 it will be smaller AND CHEAPER than the original. And yes, you can still use the existing multipliers.

This will simplify the crap out of things, and significantly reduce the page footprint. You only need one consolidated table for TLSE.

Finally, never forget the combat ramifications of anything.

Design drives combat drives design ad nauseum.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Needle goes to the red.

Why?

Why are you all messing with something that already works? Seriously what in the Space Hells is so wrong with ACS as it is that everyone is trying to kill the very thing that made me love it in the first place, Book 2 style tables?

Not everything needs to be reduced and made into bloody formulas. I mean you do that and you have pretty much killed the pretty much the whole reason I went to the trouble of building a business. Seriously, leave ACS alone and go fix something that is actually broken. Please. For the sake of my sanity.

I'd really hate to have wasted all those resources just to have the rug pulled out from underneath me.

 

[robject]

OK OK. If it were just a matter of tables I would not be worked up. I am, however, wishing ACS were (1) organized better and (2) a bit "tighter" for the lack of a better term. So I took a pass through it and compared it mentally to High Guard.

 

[robject]

Here's a problem. Any ship-to-ship combat scenario I can see that has any hope of being used is not going to be very detailed. There will be sensors and weapons and defenses, but I can't see them quite up to the complexity of ACS.

I can't see the complexity of ACS used in a game. Not to the degree that the designer has to pay attention to it 80% of the time. It seems that a lot of this stuff should be in an ADVANCED TOPICS section.

Don't get me wrong. Ship design should be more complicated than combat, because it's crunching values in order to churn out numbers that let operational tasks clip along at a breezy pace. But some of this stuff doesn't seem to be doing that. Plus there's a scare factor. Plus there's a mental load factor. Obstacles. They have a similar chilling effect on people as things like the USP does for High Guard.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Yeargh.

Here's a problem. Any ship-to-ship combat scenario I can see that has any hope of being used is not going to be very detailed. There will be sensors and weapons and defenses, but I can't see them quite up to the complexity of ACS.

Huh? I am confused, what complexity? Is there some plan to rip out all the weapons, sensors and defenses in ACS, otherwise that supposed complexity will still be in the combat system.

I can't see the complexity of ACS used in a game. Not to the degree that the designer has to pay attention to it 80% of the time. It seems that a lot of this stuff should be in an ADVANCED TOPICS section.

Again what is this complexity you speak of?

Don't get me wrong. Ship design should be more complicated than combat, because it's crunching values in order to churn out numbers that let operational tasks clip along at a breezy pace. But some of this stuff doesn't seem to be doing that. Plus there's a scare factor. Plus there's a mental load factor. Obstacles. They have a similar chilling effect on people as things like the USP does for High Guard.

I think I am very much missing what it is that is messing with you. What exactly do mean here? Seriously, I am completely confused about what is so got you in an uproar.

I don't see any problematic issues that you seem to. There isn't all that much mental load, you pick your stuff, modify it if you want and bang done. So, I do not see these obstacles or chilling effect you are on about.

 

[aramis]

Here's a problem. Any ship-to-ship combat scenario I can see that has any hope of being used is not going to be very detailed. There will be sensors and weapons and defenses, but I can't see them quite up to the complexity of ACS.

I can't see the complexity of ACS used in a game. Not to the degree that the designer has to pay attention to it 80% of the time. It seems that a lot of this stuff should be in an ADVANCED TOPICS section.

Don't get me wrong. Ship design should be more complicated than combat, because it's crunching values in order to churn out numbers that let operational tasks clip along at a breezy pace. But some of this stuff doesn't seem to be doing that. Plus there's a scare factor. Plus there's a mental load factor. Obstacles. They have a similar chilling effect on people as things like the USP does for High Guard.

I can't make heads nor tails out of the ACS system - neither 5.0 nor 5.09. It needs a rewrite for clarity. And yet, I can (with only minor annoyance) work FF&S 1 or 2 into a ship design, should I need to.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I'm from The Admiralty, I'm here to help.

I can't make heads nor tails out of the ACS system - neither 5.0 nor 5.09. It needs a rewrite for clarity. And yet, I can (with only minor annoyance) work FF&S 1 or 2 into a ship design, should I need to.

What exactly is confusing or otherwise troubling you? Perhaps I can help.

Though again, I am confused why people are having issues with it. I mean it is basically CT Book 2 which is pretty damned easy to figure out.

 

[robject]

What exactly is confusing or otherwise troubling you? Perhaps I can help.

Though again, I am confused why people are having issues with it. I mean it is basically CT Book 2 which is pretty damned easy to figure out.

It's probably mainly in presentation. The initial text, which should help explain the process, perhaps has too much information, and the reader sinks under the weight of it all.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

WTF?

It's probably mainly in presentation. The initial text, which should help explain the process, perhaps has too much information, and the reader sinks under the weight of it all.

So, wait this comes down to people can't bloody read or are just too lazy to? Seriously? That is possibly one of the saddest things I have read today.

 

[robject]

It's a lot of information to hold in one's head when it's all brand new. It took me a long time and effort to soak up the nuances of ACS, and I still can't say I'm certain about it all.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Once again I am weird.

It's a lot of information to hold in one's head when it's all brand new. It took me a long time and effort to soak up the nuances of ACS, and I still can't say I'm certain about it all.

I didn't think so, but in truth I pretty much went to the charts and started working. I did go back and read it eventually, but it was mostly OJT for me and not that difficult.