Ship's Computer/Electronics Questions

[far-trader]

Yeah I know, more computer questions

but I think these might be easy answers for the people in charge.

First, when installing communications I understand the higher model issue for cost and size of a Maser or Meson system but...

A) Do I also need a higher model number computer?

eg. I want a short range Maser communicator(model 2). I have to install 0.6dT and factor +1.5 into the cost multiplier (as if its a model 3). Does this mean I have a Model 2 Maser communicator (range Short) and need a Model 2 Computer core? Or do I have a Model 3 Maser communicator (range Short) and need a Model 3 Computer core. Seems like a double penalty if the second is correct (1.5 x2 vs. 1.5 x3).

B) Which leads to the second question. Do I need to account for each communicator (i.e. Radio, Maser, Meson) seperately or do I get the lower models free with the higher?

eg. The above short range Maser is installed. Does it include a short range Radio, a medium range Radio, or no radio at all? It seems to make the most sense to me if each type is seperate in the design so you might have a long range Radio for general communications and a close range Maser for secure communications.

Second, if a sensor (or communicator) is used in a jamming attempt can it also be used the same turn for routine sensor detection (or communication)? If not would it be realistic to have two dedicated systems, one for routine operations and a second dedicated to jamming, with either acting as a backup for the other? I guess what I'm wondering is can you simultaneously engage in jamming the foe and using your own electronics, perhaps by rotating frequencies or something, and would it require one system or two?

Lastly, here and now anyway

just an open opinion question regarding the maximum computer model allowed by ship size for small craft. That is the ship dT divided by 10 is the maximum Computer core model number allowed. Is this necessary? I think the size, cost, and for higher models the power requirements, would be sufficient limitations. It would be nice to be able to put more than a model 1 in a small fighter. Also how does one round this calculation? If it rounds down then the minimum ship size is by the strictest sense 10dT, which is fine, even though the tables cover and suggest a lower limit of 1dT. Also I've been toying with the idea of using a M0 computer, avionics, sensor, and communicator suite, supported by the computer design section M0. I figure this would be a 0.0dT system (subsumed in the minimum bridge requirements) and it would cost Mcr 0.0

Naturally you'd have an agilty penalty of -1 right off, even in space. And if you improved the basic streamlining the penalty gets even worse in atmosphere.

OK, enough for now, I'll get back to work and await with hope and anticipation any and all answers and opinions. Thanks one and all.

 

[far-trader]

So no answer or it just didn't get noticed the first time? Hunter, MJD, or anyone from the playtest group who looked at the whole maser and meson comm deal.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello far-trader,

I'm going to take a swing at answering, even though I don't fit the criteria you listed. Also, I missed this topic when you originally posted back when.

First, when installing communications I understand the higher model issue for cost and size of a Maser or Meson system but...

A) Do I also need a higher model number computer?

eg. I want a short range Maser communicator(model 2). I have to install 0.6dT and factor +1.5 into the cost multiplier (as if its a model 3). Does this mean I have a Model 2 Maser communicator (range Short) and need a Model 2 Computer core? Or do I have a Model 3 Maser communicator (range Short) and need a Model 3 Computer core. Seems like a double penalty if the second is correct (1.5 x2 vs. 1.5 x3).

A similar question came up a while back and the answer is that all components can equal but not exceed the computer Model. A Maser Model 2 can be installed on a Computer Model 2. The same Maser Model 2 can be installed on a Computer Model 3.

B) Which leads to the second question. Do I need to account for each communicator (i.e. Radio, Maser, Meson) seperately or do I get the lower models free with the higher?

My understanding of the rules are that each system is a separate component and needs to be accounted for individually. I have looked at the design rules for TNE (Chapter 5) and MT (Steps 4 and 5) communicators, sensore, and other similar electonics are added individually. GURPS:Traveller 2e has communicators and sensors included as part of the cockpit/bridge package. IIRC CT also lumps these items in with the "bridge."

Second, if a sensor (or communicator) is used in a jamming attempt can it also be used the same turn for routine sensor detection (or communication)? If not would it be realistic to have two dedicated systems, one for routine operations and a second dedicated to jamming, with either acting as a backup for the other? I guess what I'm wondering is can you simultaneously engage in jamming the foe and using your own electronics, perhaps by rotating frequencies or something, and would it require one system or two?

From a real world standpoint and replies posted here and on other Traveller boards the answer is no, a system can do only one function at a time. Usually, the functions of detection and jamming are either two different pieces of equipment or a single case containing circuitry for both. If both capabilities are in one case then you can either detect or jam, but not both. A 2-way radio is a good example. Press the talk button you can transmit a message, but miss incoming messages. Releasing the talk button you get incoming messages, but can't send. Of course if you have two radios, one can be used to listen for incoming message traffic and the other for sending messages.

I am still pondering the last part about small craft and computer model selection criteria. Hopefully, I'll come up with an aswer that I can share.

Originally posted by far-trader:
So no answer or it just didn't get noticed the first time? Hunter, MJD, or anyone from the playtest group who looked at the whole maser and meson comm deal.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
Hello far-trader,

I'm going to take a swing at answering, even though I don't fit the criteria you listed. Also, I missed this topic when you originally posted back when.

Hi Thomas, thanks, appreciate your feedback given your interest in this general area. Yeah, might have been a busy day back then and it just got lost in the noise

Originally posted by far-trader:
First, when installing communications I understand the higher model issue for cost and size of a Maser or Meson system but...

A) Do I also need a higher model number computer?

eg. I want a short range Maser communicator(model 2). I have to install 0.6dT and factor +1.5 into the cost multiplier (as if its a model 3). Does this mean I have a Model 2 Maser communicator (range Short) and need a Model 2 Computer core? Or do I have a Model 3 Maser communicator (range Short) and need a Model 3 Computer core. Seems like a double penalty if the second is correct (1.5 x2 vs. 1.5 x3).

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
A similar question came up a while back and the answer is that all components can equal but not exceed the computer Model. A Maser Model 2 can be installed on a Computer Model 2. The same Maser Model 2 can be installed on a Computer Model 3.

Hmm, not sure I recall the referenced post (or was it my nit-pick on a design where I said as much that you mean?) but your answer leads me to believe I've been unclear. I'll try again. A Maser Model 2 (range Short) requires a +1 on the minimum Model so I interpret it to mean that not only do you have to fit and pay (0.6dT and cost factor +1.5) for a Model 3 communicator but by extension you would require a minimum Model 3 (Main) Computer. Naturally I can't expect a canon Yes or No from you but your interpretation is valued.

Originally posted by far-trader:
B) Which leads to the second question. Do I need to account for each communicator (i.e. Radio, Maser, Meson) seperately or do I get the lower models free with the higher?

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
My understanding of the rules are that each system is a separate component and needs to be accounted for individually. I have looked at the design rules for TNE (Chapter 5) and MT (Steps 4 and 5) communicators, sensore, and other similar electonics are added individually. GURPS:Traveller 2e has communicators and sensors included as part of the cockpit/bridge package. IIRC CT also lumps these items in with the "bridge."

Yep, I 'was' (more on that in a seperate post I think, this one is getting cluttered

sorry) leaning that way too for the same reasons. CT doesn't really address it at all except as you say lumping it in 'Bridge' tonnage and cost. T4 (QSDS) broke it into 3 grades of systems, each adding a better form of comm/sensor and improved range of the previous unit(s). This is the kind of model I'm now leaning to (again, in post to follow).

Originally posted by far-trader:
Second, if a sensor (or communicator) is used in a jamming attempt can it also be used the same turn for routine sensor detection (or communication)? If not would it be realistic to have two dedicated systems, one for routine operations and a second dedicated to jamming, with either acting as a backup for the other? I guess what I'm wondering is can you simultaneously engage in jamming the foe and using your own electronics, perhaps by rotating frequencies or something, and would it require one system or two?

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
From a real world standpoint and replies posted here and on other Traveller boards the answer is no, a system can do only one function at a time. Usually, the functions of detection and jamming are either two different pieces of equipment or a single case containing circuitry for both. If both capabilities are in one case then you can either detect or jam, but not both. A 2-way radio is a good example. Press the talk button you can transmit a message, but miss incoming messages. Releasing the talk button you get incoming messages, but can't send. Of course if you have two radios, one can be used to listen for incoming message traffic and the other for sending messages.

Right, barring a duplex system, which is really like two systems I guess. I was wondering how realistic it is for a basic system to be tasked in a jamming role too. I think the requirements are different. It seems to me the rules imply that 'buying' a comm or sensor also gets you a jammer of equal range in the package. Seems to me that would mean you should be able to attempt both actions in the same turn, though the rules don't really make this clear one way or the other. (next post also handles this)

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
I am still pondering the last part about small craft and computer model selection criteria. Hopefully, I'll come up with an aswer that I can share.

Look forward to any ideas. My current simplified optional solution to follow shortly for those interested.

 

[far-trader]

Instead of cluttering this topic and forum with my "solution" for this problem I've started a new topic for it, please check out:
T20 Ship's Computer and Electronics options

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening again far-trader,

Does get a little cluttered when several questions are posted in one topic. Anyway here are selected replies, since I can only come up with a few answers.

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
A similar question came up a while back and the answer is that all components can equal but not exceed the computer Model. A Maser Model 2 can be installed on a Computer Model 2. The same Maser Model 2 can be installed on a Computer Model 3.

Original post by far-trader:
Hmm, not sure I recall the referenced post (or was it my nit-pick on a design where I said as much that you mean?) but your answer leads me to believe I've been unclear. I'll try again. A Maser Model 2 (range Short) requires a +1 on the minimum Model so I interpret it to mean that not only do you have to fit and pay (0.6dT and cost factor +1.5) for a Model 3 communicator but by extension you would require a minimum Model 3 (Main) Computer. Naturally I can't expect a canon Yes or No from you but your interpretation is valued.

Unfortuantely, I can't remember the details or find the post, but the gist is that someone was asking about using higher model sensor/communication systems than the computer model. Oops, sorry about the mis-interpretation, I should have checked the book a little closer. My interpretation, after reading the appropriate section, is still basically the same the Maser Model Number must be less than or equal to the Computer Model number. Since the rules under the Communications Table on THB p. 264 indicate a +1 to the Minimum Communications Model Number then a short range Maser Communicator is a Model 3 and requires at minimum a Computer Model 3. Which appears to agree with your conclusion.

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
My understanding of the rules are that each system is a separate component and needs to be accounted for individually. I have looked at the design rules for TNE (Chapter 5) and MT (Steps 4 and 5) communicators, sensore, and other similar electonics are added individually. GURPS:Traveller 2e has communicators and sensors included as part of the cockpit/bridge package. IIRC CT also lumps these items in with the "bridge."

Original post by far-trader:
Yep, I 'was' (more on that in a seperate post I think, this one is getting cluttered sorry) leaning that way too for the same reasons. CT doesn't really address it at all except as you say lumping it in 'Bridge' tonnage and cost. T4 (QSDS) broke it into 3 grades of systems, each adding a better form of comm/sensor and improved range of the previous unit(s). This is the kind of model I'm now leaning to (again, in post to follow).

I may be missing this, but I cannot seem to find Electronic warfare devices and Counter measure systems in THB. I'd look at either MT:Referees Manual or TNE:Fire, Fusion, & Steel to come up with a bridge/cockpit package since these are listed separately. Way back when I suggested changing the computer accessories: control panels & terminals to comform with MT design systems.

I'll cruise over to the link provided later, seeing as I have to be up earlier than normal tomorrow for work. General comment overall I think you have a very good handle on all of this.

 

[far-trader]

Hunter, if this catches your attention, could you take a quick look if you haven't already. Thanks.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello far-trader,

I've dropped by the post you have linked from here. Good stuff there. I still haven't come up with anything for smallcraft computers, but I am still working on it.

I added a u to yo, 7/30/03, drat those darn Internet Gremlins they stole the u

 

[lightsenshi]

Actually, I have a question also. Can shipboard computers be stardardized/minimized?

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning lightsenshi,

My understanding of the rules in the THB pp. 228 is that a computer can be stanadardized or miniaturized but not both at the same TL. Here is how I think the Advanced Tech rule works for computers:

(1) New at TL introduced
(2) Standard at TL + 1, without changes such as changing Core to a different type or adding core units to increase the type and model.
(2-A)- Miniaturizing components changes the volume and power, basically changing the computer and making the system a new item.
(3) Miniaturize components at TL + 2 same as 2 Alternate.
(3-A) IF 2-A is used and no hardware features are changed the system is standardized at TL +2.
(4) Repeat steps as needed or desired.

Over on Falkayn.com AaronKohura has a niffty spreadsheet for the Computer Design Sequence (CDS). Please note like most spreadsheets his is a work in progress, subject to change as he gets feedback or suddenly has a light bulb go on about the rules set. I have a spreadsheet in development that has had limited testing and is still being refined that closely follows the THB's sequence steps. As the spreadsheet stands now here are the combinations that can be supported: hardwiring, miniatruization, standardization, hardwiring/standardization, or hardwiring/miniaturization. I have added the option to design by budget either in MCr, Volume, or both. At some point I am going to attempt to add the option of taking the Advanced Tech rule and applying the results of alternating standardization and miniaturization. And maybe someday the spreadsheet will meet my standards and be seen somewhere as a game aid.

Originally posted by lightsenshi:
Actually, I have a question also. Can shipboard computers be stardardized/minimized?

 

[lightsenshi]

I figured it was something like that. After all, a ship's computer shouldn't cost the same at TL15 as it does at TL10.

I did, however, want a second opinion....

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by lightsenshi:
I figured it was something like that. After all, a ship's computer shouldn't cost the same at TL15 as it does at TL10.

I did, however, want a second opinion....

I figured Thomas Rux would have a good answer. About all I'd add is that you could always consider advances not shown by the UPP. For example a TL11 small craft with a (TL11) model 2 computer will have full verbal command while a TL7 small craft with the same size and cost (but TL7) model 2 computer will have a simpler Graphical User Interface.

 

[lightsenshi]

Yeah, I'm trying to make a small craft fairly cheap and the computer costs the same no matter if it's a 15 dton fighter or a million dton battleship....

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again lightsenshi,

Two other items:

Using scratch paper for the design sequence you can use the Advanced Technology Cycle (ATC) I outlined earlier.

In the spreadsheet I am currently revising and the one I had tested by several people are, unfortunately, not capable of following the ATC. My spreadsheet was deigned to follow most of the design sequence I could figure out, other items got left out because I either didn't understand them at the time or complete forgot about them while working on the spreadsheet for a single sequence. Anyway, I duplicated the tables for all the steps, while creating some for those items that didn't already have one, and linked them to the various cells for that step. In the case of the core and Advanced Tech options I only made allowance for a single design from start to finish. Your question has now emphasized the need to add the feature for the ATC into my design thinking. First a couple of questions:

Do you have MS Office 97 or better? If not do you have a compatable Office suite of Excel 97 spreadsheet application?

If either or both questions are answered yes, would you become a victim, er I mean a tester for the spreadsheet? I do have a couple of vic...volunteers lined up to test the spreadsheet, but a couple of more eyes couldn't hurt and probably make a copy good enough for release to the TU community. Here is my email address if you wish to contact me off the boards: tmr0195@concentric.net 0 = zero

Originally posted by lightsenshi:
I figured it was something like that. After all, a ship's computer shouldn't cost the same at TL15 as it does at TL10.

I did, however, want a second opinion....

 

[lightsenshi]

I do not seem to, sorry Thomas.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by lightsenshi:
I do not seem to, sorry Thomas.

Hey lightsenshi, don't give up yet! In answer to TR's question for myself on this, yes I can with OpenOffice. Its free and largely open platform. I've just started playing with it myself so I can't say much about deeper quality issues but check it out. Its ready for Windows (95, 98, NT, 2000 or XP), Linux, Mac OS X (X11) and Solaris. The system requirements are here. I'm pretty sure I saw a cheap install CD on the site too if the download is too big for you.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello far-trader,

Yes, Open Office does work with some tweaks, you might want to check with Sandman. Sandman was one of my vict... er volunteers testing my previous CDS version. Sandman also threatened to overload my hard drive with stuff he was working on. So far I have only had a couple of tiems.

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lightsenshi:
I do not seem to, sorry Thomas.

Hey lightsenshi, don't give up yet! In answer to TR's question for myself on this, yes I can with OpenOffice. Its free and largely open platform. I've just started playing with it myself so I can't say much about deeper quality issues but check it out. Its ready for Windows (95, 98, NT, 2000 or XP), Linux, Mac OS X (X11) and Solaris. The system requirements are here. I'm pretty sure I saw a cheap install CD on the site too if the download is too big for you. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[far-trader]

Hey Hunter if you're still on and have a minute could you please take a look at the first post here. I'd really appreciate some official direction if you have it. Thanks.

 

[hunter]

Without looking at the other responses and off the top of my head...

Originally posted by far-trader:
First, when installing communications I understand the higher model issue for cost and size of a Maser or Meson system but...

A) Do I also need a higher model number computer?

eg. I want a short range Maser communicator(model 2). I have to install 0.6dT and factor +1.5 into the cost multiplier (as if its a model 3). Does this mean I have a Model 2 Maser communicator (range Short) and need a Model 2 Computer core? Or do I have a Model 3 Maser communicator (range Short) and need a Model 3 Computer core. Seems like a double penalty if the second is correct (1.5 x2 vs. 1.5 x3).

You need a Model/3

B) Which leads to the second question. Do I need to account for each communicator (i.e. Radio, Maser, Meson) seperately or do I get the lower models free with the higher?

Yes you would automatically have radio communications also. But if you installed a Meson system you would NOT automatically have a Maser system also (though you would have radio).

Second, if a sensor (or communicator) is used in a jamming attempt can it also be used the same turn for routine sensor detection (or communication)? If not would it be realistic to have two dedicated systems, one for routine operations and a second dedicated to jamming, with either acting as a backup for the other? I guess what I'm wondering is can you simultaneously engage in jamming the foe and using your own electronics, perhaps by rotating frequencies or something, and would it require one system or two?

Hmmm...good question! Given the design systems I would tend to say if you had two sensor/comm operators working the system then yes you could do both in the same round. You wouldn't need seperate systems. A single operator wouldn't be able to do both.

Lastly, here and now anyway

just an open opinion question regarding the maximum computer model allowed by ship size for small craft. That is the ship dT divided by 10 is the maximum Computer core model number allowed. Is this necessary? I think the size, cost, and for higher models the power requirements, would be sufficient limitations. It would be nice to be able to put more than a model 1 in a small fighter.

Something to consider for an eventual 2nd edition certainly

Also how does one round this calculation? If it rounds down then the minimum ship size is by the strictest sense 10dT, which is fine, even though the tables cover and suggest a lower limit of 1dT.

Round Up.

Hunter

 

[far-trader]

Appreciate the time and answers Hunter, thanks.