• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Small ship universe

I have been periodically checking to see how much real interest there is in "small ship" universes, and aside from an isolated post in January of 2013, this "small ship universe" thread has been dead since the end of November. It would appear that there is very little interest in small ship universes.
 
silversides207 said:
I have been periodically checking to see how much real interest there is in "small ship" universes, and aside from an isolated post in January of 2013, this "small ship universe" thread has been dead since the end of November. It would appear that there is very little interest in small ship universes.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those SSU types.

There's plenty of interest, just not a lot of interest in academically dissecting it, I suspect.
 
Hi,

I think I agree with Aramis' post above (and to be honest, I can't say that I've seen many post lately saying "I really like a large ship universe")
 
Last edited:
The thread went quiet because we can't all keep re-hashing the same old stuff over and over and over and over. That doesn't signify no-interest (25 pages of discussion so far) it signifies "what more can be said"

CT OTU pre-HG is a small ship universe. TNE is a small ship universe. LBB5 onwards OTU is a large ship universe.

I personally have a MTU that is very much a small ship setting since that's what I prefer.

I have loads of house rules for LBB2 ship construction and combat.
 
mike wightman said:
CT OTU pre-HG is a small ship universe. TNE is a small ship universe. LBB5 onwards OTU is a large ship universe.
Click to expand...

No, TNE wasn't an SSU. The TNE line made it clear that there were big ships, and that the small stuff in the core was just that: Small.

Almost no OTU setting material predates HG, either.

Talking of pre-HG is pretty much core rules, and not the ones most of us got started with. HG2 was 1980; HG1 was 1979. Supp 1 clearly predates HG1; supps 2-4 and Adv 1-4 are 1979. It looks very much that the OTU was born in 1979. And born as a big ship universe. Even JTAS #1 is 1979.

Not that lots of us didn't play without the big ship rules... a lot of us didn't find HG until 1985+...
 
silversides207 said:
It would appear that there is very little interest in small ship universes.
Click to expand...


As the others have pointed out, we've all been using and discussing small ship universes for many years now. We all know how the others are doing, we all know why the others are doing it, and we all know how the others are explaining it in their settings.

We've all basically talked ourselves out sadly.

You, however, are new. We haven't yet heard about the particulars of your small ship universe and I'm sure the particulars of your small ship universe will be worth discussing.

So, how have you handled it? Have you cut budgets along with sizes? Have you cut populations too? What sort of technical "mumbo-jumbo" have you used to "rationalize" the in-setting reasons behind your small ship universe?
 
After 25 pages of previous comments, what new could I contribute? Besides, my thoughts are definitely extremely heretical when it comes to the so-called "canon".

Crews are much larger, jump drives take a lot less fuel, maneuver drives take a lot more fuel, I include nasty things like INSURANCE, and far more realistic maintenance costs. Military ships are far more expensive, and the standard ship hull is maybe one inch or 25 millimeters of high-tensile strength steel, not the bizarre thicknesses that show up in some of the books.

Longer hauls cost more, crew double bunk, as do passengers. Low berths are for animal carriage, not people.
 
silversides207 said:
After 25 pages of previous comments, what new could I contribute?
Click to expand...


Wait a minute, weren't you the one complaining no one was discussing the topic? If you don't think you've got anything to say, why do you think the rest of us would?

Besides, my thoughts are definitely extremely heretical when it comes to the so-called "canon".
Click to expand...

SSU settings are heretical already, why worry about canon?

Crews are much larger, jump drives take a lot less fuel, maneuver drives take a lot more fuel, I include nasty things like INSURANCE, and far more realistic maintenance costs. Military ships are far more expensive, and the standard ship hull is maybe one inch or 25 millimeters of high-tensile strength steel, not the bizarre thicknesses that show up in some of the books.
Click to expand...

That's a good start. Why not explain how your larger crew work? Or how you determine how big a crew should be?

Longer hauls cost more, crew double bunk, as do passengers. Low berths are for animal carriage, not people.
Click to expand...

That's some other good stuff. Why not explain your version of shipping costs?
 
Aren't you the guy who shredded Timerover51 when he disagreed with you.

You inability to comprehend this OTU/YTU dichotomy is the root of your problems here. For example, you natter on and on about "my" weapon ranges spinning out facts and figures without even being aware that the weapon ranges I quoted are from the game itself. I didn't create those ranges and I don't believe the thinking behind much of them, but I took them as a given because they are part of the game.

Another example of your incomprehension is your conversation with Mike regarding hull materials. You again natter on and on spewing facts and figures regarding this and that type of steel because the hull materials listed in the game are in your opinion impossible. The game uses those materials, impossible or not, so any discussion of the game and it's official setting must use those materials too.

Try and understand that. Your opinions and real world facts DO NOT MATTER. All that matters is what facts and, frankly, impossibilities the game's designers and writers have decided that matter. Those decisions comprise the OTU and my essay is rooted firmly within the OTU.
Click to expand...

I figure that you and the rest of the Old Guard will do the same to all other new posters.
 
Not at all, a fresh view and how others do things is always welcome.

There may be something I can 'borrow' ;)

As has been mentioned upthread canon can go to hades when you are describing YTU/small ship paradigm because the OTU doesn't use it.

T5 has only provided details for small ships, but the implication is big ships are there hence the setting is still a large ship universe, much like TNE was back in its day.

IMTU I stick to small ships and LBB2 design, modified with weapons from other versions, armour, sensor rules borrowed from T2300 - all pretty heretical stuff.
 
silversides207 said:
Aren't you the guy who shredded Timerover51 when he disagreed with you.
Click to expand...


It was more like incomprehension on his part than disagreement. In order to disagree with something you have to understand it first and Timerover sadly didn't understand the essay from the first. I hadn't placed the essay in my or any other setting, I'd deliberately placed the essay in the OTU.

I'd written the essay based entirely on OTU assumptions, not because I happen to agree with those assumptions but because using those assumptions would more easily allow people to "translate" parts of the essay into their personal settings.

In the bit you quoted, I explained how I don't believe in many of the OTU's canonical weapon ranges. However, if I'd used my own ranges in the essay, people would have had more trouble "translating" my setting into their setting than they would have had "translating" the OTU into their setting. In order to make this "translation" as easy as possible, I chose to use OTU assumptions because that's the one setting everyone is already familiar with.

All this concern over "translation" was beyond Timerover's ability to understand. He has "issues", as has recently become apparent, and he was unable to comprehend why the essay was written in the manner it was. He doesn't use OTU weapon ranges and cannot understand why anyone else would. To his limited thinking, the essay "wrong" because the ranges were "wrong" and he expressed that thinking over several posts without ever attempting to understand why the OTU ranges had been used.

So, I didn't shred him over his critique of OTU weapon ranges. I don't use those ranges myself. What I did shred him over was his repeated inability despite my repeated explanations to comprehend why the essay had used those ranges. I made my point forcefully because that seemed to be the only way to get Timerover to listen.

And despite that I believe he still didn't understand. :( What Timerover or I use in our personal settings do not matter to the OTU so, if my essay was to be rooted in the OTU, I would have to ignore what isn't part of the OTU.

I figure that you and the rest of the Old Guard will do the same to all other new posters.
Click to expand...

No, we wouldn't. I did show interest in your setting after all and still would like to hear about your crew sizes as I use larger crews myself. People talk about how their personal settings work all the time as no one uses a pure OTU setting.
 
Nice Thread Resurrect! If you have something to contribute, great! If you want more detail on something, quote a post and ask! If you want to debate something, quote a post and say what you would do differently!

We'll only get annoyed if you do it just to argue (that's a fuzzy line...) or to insult and such. Otherwise, come on in! The water's nice and warm.
 
okay...I'll bite
-----------------------

The hull is based on a sphere inside a bounding box, similar to before, but with the acceptance that it is an approximation. I won't even worry about configurations directly as much of that sort of thing can be looked sideways at with my use of hull proportions.
Given a hull displacement and the hull's proportions, the rest can be figured relatively easily. The hull proportions are ratios of length to width to height, such as l:w:h. A type 's', for example, would be 1350m^3 and l:w:h of ~5 : 3.2 : 1 (37.5:24:7.5).
I divide the actual volume by .5236 to be an approximation of the size of the hull's bounding box, and then divide that volume by the different ratios to get the size of the cubes that make up such a bounding box. Taking the cube root of that number gets the length of the cubes that compose the bounding box.
(1350/.5236)/(5*3.2*1) = 161.144 m^3
161.144^(1/3) = 5.44 m

If I multiply the result by the length, width and height proportions, I can have an approximation of the overall dimensions for the hull.
My example is a worst case scenario because a wedge, such as a type 's' uses takes up a much smaller volume inside its bounding box than a stretched out sphere takes. I can live with it as it would be an extreme case that is not overly common compared to most of the other ships/vehicles that can be made, and I would sacrifice that small bit of 'detail' in favor of ease in use. As the dimensions are approximations, I can fudge when drawing deckplans. The important thing is that performance stats will work out assuming I use the same procedure for all ships and vehicles.

length = ~27.2m
width = ~17.4m
height = ~5.44m

Having an idea of basic dimensions will be used to limit spinal mounts as hull length limits spinal mount tunnel length, and to limit agility through the longest dimension affecting the hull's moment of inertia.

the hull's surface area is proportional to the surface area of the hull's bounding box. As it is based on a sphere/ellipsoid within a bounding box, stretched as the box is stretched, That proportion is .5236, the same as the area of a sphere to the area of that sphere's bounding box.

(27.2*17.4)+(27.2*5.44)+(17.4*5.44)*2*.5236 = ~750m^2

frontal x-section can be approximated by width*height*.7854, for use in estimating atmospheric speeds
lifting area can be approximated by length*width*.7854, for use in estimating aero performance.
Surface area relates to the number of hardpoints available for mounting turrets, sensors, radiators, etc.
I have an idea that the level of streamlining ( drag_coeff.) is related to the number of hardpoints actually used vs. the number of hardpoints available. Fewer protrusions off the hull makes for better streamlining. Naturally, pop-up fixtures will not count against streamlining, but they will take up volume inside the hull and cost more.

For thrust and structure, I will base it on a 100dt ship with an MT armor of 40, massing 1000 tonnes, and is capable of 10g's structurally, or 10,000 tonnes thrust.
The base structure comes from the hull material itself and each 5% of the ship's volume adds another point of structure.
The amount of thrust the hull can handle is based on the square cube law.
A 600dton ship, with the same level of armor, but without extra structure would be able to handle ...
6^(-2/3) *10g's* 1000tonnes* 1structure = 17,200 tonnes thrust for 2.86g's
if we add 60dtons of structure to this hull..
6^(-2/3) *10g's* 1000tonnes* 3structure = 51,620 tonnes thrust for 8.6 g's, assuming a ship's mass of 6000tonnes.
Adding armor increases strength. AV/40 as a multiple will work; double the armor thickness will double the load-bearing surface area.
Naturally, reducing the ship's mass will allow for greater g's for a given amount of allowable thrust, but good luck! Mass will inevitably increase much faster than load bearing surface area.

Big ships will wallow about unless large volumes of structure are added and small ships can handle huge amounts of thrust without crumpling.
Big ships will have fewer hardpoints than standard trav. Big ships will not do well in atmospheres compared to standard trav.
Big ships may have powerful spinal mounts.

I will guess that the amount of thrust the hull is capable of and the total surface area can be used to estimate crush depth when diving.
More structural capability lets a hull go deeper... and less surface area lets a hull go deeper.
----------------------------
IMTU
And this is why I see no reason to have a distinction between BSU and SSU. All ships will exist but giant ships will have decidedly different performance than HG assumes and will fulfill different functions than the OTU assumes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Striker vehicles vs High Guard vehicle design
Replies
11
Views
539
Badenov
Badenov
Y
Orbital facilities and small starships
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
aramis
aramis
pzmcgwire
Dulinor's Cruiser, Sargon and gig
Replies
2
Views
1K
MThompson016
M
C
Ships’ services IYTU
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Carlobrand
C
Marcatlas
Cepheus Engine Only 10 Ton Jump ship
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
Condottiere
C
Back
Top