Mixed computers?

[Carlobrand]

Okay, so MegaTrav says you have to have three computers in a spacecraft, one primary and two "safety backups". The computers are a key component in providing enough control points to the craft - without enough control points, you do not control the craft.

However, I don't see "back-up" rules for use of back-up systems. I'm guessing a computer hit affects the trio. Of interest is that computer hits do not involve recalculating control points - they appear to simply reduce the odds of success. Perhaps the trio working together provide adequate control but inferior overall performance.

So ... can you have three computers of different type? Or add a fourth dedicated to a particular system?

My thought is this:

1. High-end computers are expensive little pieces of tech.

2. High-end computers are an important part of your sensor grid.

3. If your primary job is detection, you might save a few credits by installing one computer serving the sensor grid and two or even three smaller computers serving the ship's/boat's control systems. If you calculated control panel needs off the smaller computers, you have control regardless of which computer is operating - but your sensors are functioning off the high-end computer, extending your sensor range. You'd have something costing about a third the cost of that MCr116 20-ton strike fighter, a dedicated reconnaissance boat that wouldn't stand up well in a fight but really isn't intended to.

However:

While I can't find a rule that says they have to be the same, I also can't find anything that speaks to handling such a chimera in combat. So you've got 3 model-3's and a model-9 on sensors and take a computer-2 hit. You now have what, 3 model-1's and a model-7 on sensors? 3 model-3's and a model-7? And what if someone wants to set a model-9 on weapons while a handling engines and other systems with a lesser computer?

It's appealing, but it has the feel of one of those rules limbo things. Thoughts? Is this one of those "run screaming in horror" ideas?

 

[aramis]

Backups in MT are on RM p.61, LC.

So, yes, a ship could wind up insufficiently controlled by the rules as written

 

[Carlobrand]

Ah there it is, "Spare systems." Idiot me.

So, you've got a computer and two backups, and, "These are backup devices and may not be in operation at the same time as the main device. The higher-output device is the mainstay; the backup device does not consume fuel or power while it is not in use. When the main device takes damage that reduces it below the level of the backup, the backup takes over. If the backup is then damaged, the main unit returns to action. Whichever unit has the highest current factor is the one in operation; when damage is received, it is applied to the unit in operation. Under no circumstances may a backup and main device be operating at the same time."

So, when you take computer damage, computer A takes the hurt and computer B comes on-line. Then when that takes damage, computer C comes on-line. And if that takes damage, and leaves computer #A as best of the 3, computer A comes back on-line - except that if your control points aren't high enough under the damaged computer #1 ... nothing works? Which means, unless you've designed your system with a little leeway, that three computer hits of any type - whether "computer-1" or "computer destroyed" - have the same result: you no longer control your ship?

And, I could conceivably build a ship and design it to be handled with the control points generated by three Computer-2's and associated panels, then make one of the computers a computer-9 and all the ship functions would reflect that computer level - but it would be the only one taking hits until it fell below 2. Or, I could boost all 3 to 9 and be secure in the knowledge that systems would be controlled until all 3 fell below a 2.

Now, in space combat: "Computer destroyed: ... the ship may not jump, or launch subordinate craft through launch tubes, although it may continue to fire weapons and maneuver."

verses personal combat: "Computer: Apply the damage to the superstructure Also, on a vehicle, the computer is destroyed; on a robot, its brain is destroyed. If a robot’s brain is hit, it ceases to function"

and: "If all computers malfunction, a craft which uses controls
that require a computer will be out of control."

So spacecraft retain the ability to fire weapons - though accuracy goes way down since the computer factor is a DM. And spacecraft, with the luxury of 20 minute turns and a zero-g environment, can still run their maneuver drives. But a craft in personal combat ceases to be able to move or control itself. Now, the only entry that speaks to crashing comes in when the power plant or maneuver drive is inoperative due to damage, so presumably a flying grav craft is reduced to ... hovering? Or perhaps to settling gradually down rather than crashing?

 

[aramis]

The best bet is to ignore the CP requirements for combat purposes, just noting that:
1) Model for attack/defense purposes is reduced
2) model for jump capability is reduced

And note that, given the MT design sequences, the typical is 3 identicals, so the first two Computer -N hits have no immediate effect; the third has only the effect of the least damaging.

eg: Ship with 3xMod/6 takes Comp -2 (Result 466=6), Comp -3 (Result 436=6) and Comp -1 hit (Result 435=5). If it takes another comp hit, say, a -2... it goes to 434=4, and drops to 4. Another comp 2 and it goes to 432=4....

I prefer the CT "2d6 for > comp hits to remain functional," myself, or to assign computers a DP rating and use the vehicular combat mechanics. YMMV.

 

[Carlobrand]

Thanks, that was a big help.

 

[McPerth]

So, when you take computer damage, computer A takes the hurt and computer B comes on-line. Then when that takes damage, computer C comes on-line. And if that takes damage, and leaves computer #A as best of the 3, computer A comes back on-line - except that if your control points aren't high enough under the damaged computer #1 ... nothing works? Which means, unless you've designed your system with a little leeway, that three computer hits of any type - whether "computer-1" or "computer destroyed" - have the same result: you no longer control your ship?

And, I could conceivably build a ship and design it to be handled with the control points generated by three Computer-2's and associated panels, then make one of the computers a computer-9 and all the ship functions would reflect that computer level - but it would be the only one taking hits until it fell below 2. Or, I could boost all 3 to 9 and be secure in the knowledge that systems would be controlled until all 3 fell below a 2.

If you wanted to calculate all the CP effects of combat damage, aside from he computer reductions in CP as it downgrades due to damage, you also shuld calculate the lowering CPs needs for damaged components (mostly weaponry. A single beam laser at TL 15 is worth 150 CP, and a factor 9 laser battery 4500), and that would slow the system.

You also must take into account that in combat the jump drives use not to be on line, so that should save you quite a few CPs too...

As I see it, the CP requirements are the way MT has to incorporate the minimal computer for larger ships (as HG required a minimal computer according your size code), and its effects are for routine operations, not combat operations, so, this limit could well make your ship inoperable after the combat, for the routine operations (unless you can make field repairs in your computer).

And, BTW, I don't recall in HG any problem if your 200 kdton ship's computer was downgraded by combat damage to rating 5- (less than the minimum for such a ship).

Now, in space combat: "Computer destroyed: ... the ship may not jump, or launch subordinate craft through launch tubes, although it may continue to fire weapons and maneuver."

verses personal combat: "Computer: Apply the damage to the superstructure Also, on a vehicle, the computer is destroyed; on a robot, its brain is destroyed. If a robot’s brain is hit, it ceases to function"

and: "If all computers malfunction, a craft which uses controls
that require a computer will be out of control."

So spacecraft retain the ability to fire weapons - though accuracy goes way down since the computer factor is a DM. And spacecraft, with the luxury of 20 minute turns and a zero-g environment, can still run their maneuver drives. But a craft in personal combat ceases to be able to move or control itself. Now, the only entry that speaks to crashing comes in when the power plant or maneuver drive is inoperative due to damage, so presumably a flying grav craft is reduced to ... hovering? Or perhaps to settling gradually down rather than crashing?

In Starship Operators Manual (sorry, I have not it handy, so I cannot give you exact references) is told that most systems have their own smaller computers to control them, the main computer coordinating them. As I understand it, then, if the main computer gets off-line (backups included), most systems might still work, only without coordination (and so you have worse combat DMs).

Of course, this may well not be canon, as (IIRC) it was said in one of the Old Timer explanations.

 

[aramis]

The only problem of not having one is being unable to jump... in both CTHG and MT