How to design a T4 ship
- Thread starter Jame
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It's exactly the same formula that has been used from High Guard on - apart from the four different editions of the CT rules that is 
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">jump no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
hull % 2 3 4 5 6 7
fuel % 10 20 30 40 50 60</pre>[/QUOTE]
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">jump no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
hull % 2 3 4 5 6 7
fuel % 10 20 30 40 50 60</pre>[/QUOTE]
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I didn't want to confuse Jame
And as an aside, here are the drive formuae from High Guard 1:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">drive no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
power plant 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
jump drive 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
maneuver 2% 4% 5% 12% 16% 20%</pre>[/QUOTE]And I still stick to my conspiracy theory that this table is where the error krept into Traveller ship design - the jump drive and maneuver drive were switched accidentally
And as an aside, here are the drive formuae from High Guard 1:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">drive no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
power plant 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
jump drive 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
maneuver 2% 4% 5% 12% 16% 20%</pre>[/QUOTE]And I still stick to my conspiracy theory that this table is where the error krept into Traveller ship design - the jump drive and maneuver drive were switched accidentally
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
If you're building T4/FF&S2 ships you need Andy Akins' spreadsheet. His site's down ATM, but I've got a copy if you want it.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Actually, I found 2:
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_boulton/ssdsxl50.xls
...which is based on SSDS (an improved version of the rather basic QSDS in the T4 rulebook), and
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_boulton/FFS2XL97.xls
...which is the full FF&S2 version.
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_boulton/ssdsxl50.xls
...which is based on SSDS (an improved version of the rather basic QSDS in the T4 rulebook), and
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_boulton/FFS2XL97.xls
...which is the full FF&S2 version.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Hey Jame, sounds like you should grab the pdf for QSDS and some good additional material here:
BITS Archive
For T4 shipbuilding I found the much more understandable QSDS 1.5.1 and its companion Big Book of Hulls very good, as well on the page are a choice of two good combat systems. I recommend RPSC (The Role-Playing Space Combat System). Have fun
BITS Archive
For T4 shipbuilding I found the much more understandable QSDS 1.5.1 and its companion Big Book of Hulls very good, as well on the page are a choice of two good combat systems. I recommend RPSC (The Role-Playing Space Combat System). Have fun
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
That's a cryptically odd statement robject
I found QSDS to be a nice medium between the horrible charts of the T4 book and the messed up symbols and complexity of FF&S2. QSDS is imo a well thought out and easily usable system for Quick designs with pen and paper. No need for a calculator, or spreadsheet, and just enough detail to make things interesting. If not for QSDS I'd have chucked T4 entirely long ago.
Not that I'm against more thourough design systems, I quite like the extra detail and "reality" but don't always have time to do it for every player target or encounter. Heck I even still use Book 2 now and again for quick designs.
I found QSDS to be a nice medium between the horrible charts of the T4 book and the messed up symbols and complexity of FF&S2. QSDS is imo a well thought out and easily usable system for Quick designs with pen and paper. No need for a calculator, or spreadsheet, and just enough detail to make things interesting. If not for QSDS I'd have chucked T4 entirely long ago.
Not that I'm against more thourough design systems, I quite like the extra detail and "reality" but don't always have time to do it for every player target or encounter. Heck I even still use Book 2 now and again for quick designs.
The only way I can remain calm about it is to be cryptic. There are scars
The elements of QSDS are fine, but a lot of the numbers are just detail for the sake of detail, rather than an improvement or refinement (or simplification: I wrongly assumed that a QSDS is supposed to be simpler than an SSDS, hence the "Quick"). Artificial complexity, maybe.
Take the hull table.
Suppose you're a gearhead, and want lots of decimal places, because you want to outfit your ship just so. Are you going to be satisfied with QSDS? No, because as a gearhead, you'll get Andy Akins' FFS2 spreadsheet and have everything at your fingertips.
My whine-o-meter is going off. I'd better stop now. Oh no, too late!
Now, suppose you're a High Guard guy, just scribbling a ship down with pencil and paper. Are you going to want to add up numbers with four or five significant digits? A calculator will help, but, aren't these numbers still approximations, sort of made up from FFS2? So why are all those decimal places there? You might look at the entries for the 400-ton hulls and say to yourself, "hey, all these volumes are pretty similar... why didn't they just round up?"
If you're a fool like I am, you'll ask that question to the TML, like I did.
Uh oh, I can hear my doctor saying "watch that blood pressure" to me...
At this point, I look at the hull table and say, "WHY?" If this is the Quick system, Why oh Why aren't the tables simplified? It is as if a gearhead tried to design something for non-gearheads. And maybe Guy is a gearhead (is he? I don't recall).
Okay then, this isn't the Simple rules. But wait! It IS the simple rules! There's nothing else.
What really got my goat on the TML was when some grognard snapped back that I should round off the numbers myself. And that's when I began to understand what newcomers to Traveller have to deal with. The rules are sometimes designed for the grognard, not the casual gamer, the newbie, or the Book 2 fan. And that can be a Very Bad Thing.
Oh, it's time to relax. Ohmmmm, ohmmmm...
The elements of QSDS are fine, but a lot of the numbers are just detail for the sake of detail, rather than an improvement or refinement (or simplification: I wrongly assumed that a QSDS is supposed to be simpler than an SSDS, hence the "Quick"). Artificial complexity, maybe.
Take the hull table.
Suppose you're a gearhead, and want lots of decimal places, because you want to outfit your ship just so. Are you going to be satisfied with QSDS? No, because as a gearhead, you'll get Andy Akins' FFS2 spreadsheet and have everything at your fingertips.
My whine-o-meter is going off. I'd better stop now. Oh no, too late!
Now, suppose you're a High Guard guy, just scribbling a ship down with pencil and paper. Are you going to want to add up numbers with four or five significant digits? A calculator will help, but, aren't these numbers still approximations, sort of made up from FFS2? So why are all those decimal places there? You might look at the entries for the 400-ton hulls and say to yourself, "hey, all these volumes are pretty similar... why didn't they just round up?"
If you're a fool like I am, you'll ask that question to the TML, like I did.
Uh oh, I can hear my doctor saying "watch that blood pressure" to me...
At this point, I look at the hull table and say, "WHY?" If this is the Quick system, Why oh Why aren't the tables simplified? It is as if a gearhead tried to design something for non-gearheads. And maybe Guy is a gearhead (is he? I don't recall).
Okay then, this isn't the Simple rules. But wait! It IS the simple rules! There's nothing else.
What really got my goat on the TML was when some grognard snapped back that I should round off the numbers myself. And that's when I began to understand what newcomers to Traveller have to deal with. The rules are sometimes designed for the grognard, not the casual gamer, the newbie, or the Book 2 fan. And that can be a Very Bad Thing.
Oh, it's time to relax. Ohmmmm, ohmmmm...
Well, it's not your fault, Dan, but I'm just in the mood today. Let's look at QSDS and see what is value-added and what is just noise.
Ach, wait. First, I know that these are opinions, but I strongly feel that there is something wrong going on in QSDS.
Okay, on with my blithering.
Hulls - already whined about that.
Jump Drive Volumes - come on! You can't tell me that jump drives are based on fact. Therefore, why must a jump drive unit ever have a cost and area that uses more than one significant digit in QSDS? In FFS2 there's no problem with fractional values -- I'm sure TL has something to do with all this -- but please, please, why not be MCr4 per ton and 3m^3 per ton?? And, if we're being oh so proper, why did we change the crew requirement from 1/35 to 1/30? Because it's easier? Hah! It's not the 'Easy' Ship Design System. So it must be that the designers wanted more automation effects at this TL. Arbitrary change. Too bad they didn't arbitrarily round off some numbers too.
HEPlaR, though unused in MTU, has a saner table, and doesn't trigger my whiny knee-jerk reactions.
The thrust plates table makes me itch. It just feels a little awkward.
Avionics drives me crazy. The largest difference between the packages is 0.9 tons. WHY EVEN MENTION IT? This is the QUICK system, right? Why not just round them up? Makes the tables cleaner, eh? And what's up with those prices? MCr12.2? Why not just MCr12? Really, the piddly differences here makes me want to say "they're all 2 tons, and they all take 1 MW, and they all occupy 0.5m^3." In fact, for the Simple, Quick system I'd switch to hardpoints and disregard surface area altogether.
Sensor Systems: TL10 Medium Military sensors take 545.1 MW. Excuse me, but this is the Quick system. Can't we slop a bit and say 550 MW (or even 500MW)? Is anyone going to complain? Why yes, the gearheads will complain. No, they won't, because they're not even here; they're using the FFS2 worksheet...
Standard Comms. Notice there's a volume entry for one sensor? Why even bother?
Anyway, you're tired of hearing me complain, complain, complain, and you probably get my drift by now. I'm a rabid simplicicist or something.
I'm sorry if this came off as annoying or whiny. Of all things Traveller, the QSDS just seems to hit a sore spot with me. Maybe it's a case of "so close, yet so far" for T4 -- and therefore Traveller -- as a whole. I dunno.
Having said all that: it's hard work designing a ship design system. Although, it does help a lot having Mr. Akins' spreadsheet handy to design components. Ya just gotta pass it through the Friendly Filter a couple times before it's ready for some of us brain-damaged people.
Ach, wait. First, I know that these are opinions, but I strongly feel that there is something wrong going on in QSDS.
Okay, on with my blithering.
Hulls - already whined about that.
Jump Drive Volumes - come on! You can't tell me that jump drives are based on fact. Therefore, why must a jump drive unit ever have a cost and area that uses more than one significant digit in QSDS? In FFS2 there's no problem with fractional values -- I'm sure TL has something to do with all this -- but please, please, why not be MCr4 per ton and 3m^3 per ton?? And, if we're being oh so proper, why did we change the crew requirement from 1/35 to 1/30? Because it's easier? Hah! It's not the 'Easy' Ship Design System. So it must be that the designers wanted more automation effects at this TL. Arbitrary change. Too bad they didn't arbitrarily round off some numbers too.
HEPlaR, though unused in MTU, has a saner table, and doesn't trigger my whiny knee-jerk reactions.
The thrust plates table makes me itch. It just feels a little awkward.
Avionics drives me crazy. The largest difference between the packages is 0.9 tons. WHY EVEN MENTION IT? This is the QUICK system, right? Why not just round them up? Makes the tables cleaner, eh? And what's up with those prices? MCr12.2? Why not just MCr12? Really, the piddly differences here makes me want to say "they're all 2 tons, and they all take 1 MW, and they all occupy 0.5m^3." In fact, for the Simple, Quick system I'd switch to hardpoints and disregard surface area altogether.
Sensor Systems: TL10 Medium Military sensors take 545.1 MW. Excuse me, but this is the Quick system. Can't we slop a bit and say 550 MW (or even 500MW)? Is anyone going to complain? Why yes, the gearheads will complain. No, they won't, because they're not even here; they're using the FFS2 worksheet...
Standard Comms. Notice there's a volume entry for one sensor? Why even bother?
Anyway, you're tired of hearing me complain, complain, complain, and you probably get my drift by now. I'm a rabid simplicicist or something.
I'm sorry if this came off as annoying or whiny. Of all things Traveller, the QSDS just seems to hit a sore spot with me. Maybe it's a case of "so close, yet so far" for T4 -- and therefore Traveller -- as a whole. I dunno.
Having said all that: it's hard work designing a ship design system. Although, it does help a lot having Mr. Akins' spreadsheet handy to design components. Ya just gotta pass it through the Friendly Filter a couple times before it's ready for some of us brain-damaged people.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I hope it wasn't me, I have that haunting feelingOriginally posted by GrognardRobject:
The only way I can remain calm about it is to be cryptic. There are scars
..."hey, all these volumes are pretty similar... why didn't they just round up?"
If you're a fool like I am, you'll ask that question to the TML, like I did.
...What really got my goat on the TML was when some grognard snapped back that I should round off the numbers myself.
Certainly it wasn't a foolish question and it is what I was doing iirc. Rounding that is, to one decimal point throughout I think, not snapping I hope.
I'll apologize for the experience on behalf of the brotherhood of Grogs and Gears if it wasn't me, for what it's worth. I left the TML some time back for similar reasons so I don't think it was me, or if it was I expressed the idea poorly. If it was me, I sincerly apologize.
No problem here
It was cool. It was. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have been so gammummashkum about it. I was so uptight about it, that's when I began trying to develop a Hybrid Starship Design System, which I've been toying with on and off ever since.
I actually poinked at the QSDS a bit, and came up with these anti-gearhead thoughts:
Hull
Pick a volume. Cost is MCr4 per 100 tons.
Streamlining takes 10% of the hull volume.
Airframing takes 10% of the hull volume and costs MCr1 per 100 tons of ship.
Jump Drive
Pick a rating. Volume is (J+1)% hull volume (QSDS' table is perfect for this).
Cost is MCr4 per ton.
Maneuver Drive
Pick a rating. Volume is (Mx2)% hull volume.
Cost is MCr3 per ton. Power requirements are 15MW per ton.
Avoinics
Civilian:
Volume is 2 tons.
Military:
Volume is 3 tons. Power and cost are double that of civvie models.
I actually poinked at the QSDS a bit, and came up with these anti-gearhead thoughts:
Hull
Pick a volume. Cost is MCr4 per 100 tons.
Streamlining takes 10% of the hull volume.
Airframing takes 10% of the hull volume and costs MCr1 per 100 tons of ship.
Jump Drive
Pick a rating. Volume is (J+1)% hull volume (QSDS' table is perfect for this).
Cost is MCr4 per ton.
Maneuver Drive
Pick a rating. Volume is (Mx2)% hull volume.
Cost is MCr3 per ton. Power requirements are 15MW per ton.
Avoinics
Civilian:
Volume is 2 tons.
Code:
TL Power Cost
9-10 1 3
11 2 6
12 2 9
13 2 12
14 2 15
15 2 18Volume is 3 tons. Power and cost are double that of civvie models.
Last edited:
It's Vilani, and I think the closest possible translation is: "legally upset due to being uptight about things which people of good conscience may freely disagree about". No, that's not it. Well, the word 'upset' is definitely in the definition. Or maybe 'frustrated'. You know, I'm not entirely sure, but I hope you get some sense of it.
sandmanninja
SOC-9
Why are there double posts for every post here?
