• 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.

Starship Electronics Packages

robject

robject

SOC-14 10K
Admin Award
Marquis
While browsing the MegaTraveller starship design tables, I couldn't help but think that there must be a handful of common-sense "electronics packages" that represents what most designers would choose for a handful of situations.

I suspect this is also the case for FFS2/SSDS, and even QSDS. Part of the pain of designing starships comes when the choices we make are, for all practical purposes, inconsequential.

So, I'm wondering if anyone has put together a table of "Electronics Packages" for starship design. Instead of picking a sensor suite, picking avionics, picking jammers, and picking comms, perhaps someone has bundled these four (or more) into a single table of commonsense options.

Anyone tried this?
 
While browsing the MegaTraveller starship design tables, I couldn't help but think that there must be a handful of common-sense "electronics packages" that represents what most designers would choose for a handful of situations.

I suspect this is also the case for FFS2/SSDS, and even QSDS. Part of the pain of designing starships comes when the choices we make are, for all practical purposes, inconsequential.

So, I'm wondering if anyone has put together a table of "Electronics Packages" for starship design. Instead of picking a sensor suite, picking avionics, picking jammers, and picking comms, perhaps someone has bundled these four (or more) into a single table of commonsense options.

Anyone tried this?
 
Actually, in both QSDS/SSDS, electronics/sensors are only in packages, not in seperate compnents like MT. It can be a bit irritaiting when you want to add to the packages, but you can get around it.
 
Actually, in both QSDS/SSDS, electronics/sensors are only in packages, not in seperate compnents like MT. It can be a bit irritaiting when you want to add to the packages, but you can get around it.
 
Thank you Renard, it's been a long time since I've used either. I figure a complete design system would need both the packages table and the individual tables.
 
Thank you Renard, it's been a long time since I've used either. I figure a complete design system would need both the packages table and the individual tables.
 
So, I'm looking at QSDS, and the separate electronics-like tables are:

</font>
  • Avionics (two tables)</font>
  • Sensor suites (Contains all sensor types)</font>
  • Comms</font>
I suggest that three reorganizations first need to happen:
</font>
  • Avionics needs to be reorganized, with one table for avionics proper, and a separate line-item for the "militarizing" element... or something like that... if possible.</font>
  • The sensor suite table needs to be replaced. with three separate tables (AEMS, PEMS, and Jammers).</font>
  • The comms table needs to be broken down into components with type and range information.</font>
Once these are implemented, then full, common electronics packages can be built from these.
 
So, I'm looking at QSDS, and the separate electronics-like tables are:

</font>
  • Avionics (two tables)</font>
  • Sensor suites (Contains all sensor types)</font>
  • Comms</font>
I suggest that three reorganizations first need to happen:
</font>
  • Avionics needs to be reorganized, with one table for avionics proper, and a separate line-item for the "militarizing" element... or something like that... if possible.</font>
  • The sensor suite table needs to be replaced. with three separate tables (AEMS, PEMS, and Jammers).</font>
  • The comms table needs to be broken down into components with type and range information.</font>
Once these are implemented, then full, common electronics packages can be built from these.
 
Avionics

Okay, looking at FFS2 avionics, the cost is trivial -- Cr17,000 to Cr25,000 for TL15 stuff; power is in the 10-20 kilowatt range; and volume is a tiny, tiny fraction of a cubic meter. In short, I don't know why avionics is in QSDS at all; rather, TF and NOE speeds are fixed solely by the starship's TL.

Comms

Radio comms in FFS2 are logarithmic by range, which is much more regular than in MT, although they're not as clearly named as MT's (you have to reference another table to see how range numbers map to distance benchmarks). Volume and price seem to be in the same ballpark as MT; they may be the same for all I can tell. Their prices tend to be much more fiddly; why set a price at Cr28,148? Are you sure it's not on sale somewhere for Cr28,144?

Aside from my ranting nits, the comms tables do the same thing that MT's comms tables do.

Sensors

I like the QSDS sensor string. Those three numbers sum it up for me: A16 P5 J8. The A and P numbers are DMs to roll in attaining a target lock during combat. The J is a negative DM against gaining that lock, and a positive DM in breaking the lock.

I have one problem with those numbers: they require a table lookup in combat -- the one place where things ought to be streamlined. It would be far better to rate the sensors using battle numbers, and modify them (if necessary!) for routine scanning. Thus the sensors above would be A1 P0 J1, and sensors could run into the negative values (perhaps that can somehow be avoided as well).

Anyway. I never did get the hang of FFS2 sensors. How sensitivity combines with skill into a task roll against a ship's signal conceptually makes sense, but the details always escaped me. Bruce Macintosh's definitive sensor rules helped some, but in the end it all just seemed tiring.

Also, I can't resolve sensor area into a displacement. I suppose, then, that sensors are actually integrated into the surface of the hull, which is intriguing. So, sensors have no volume requirement at all, merely a cost -- assuming you can cram them onto the hull, that is.

And here's the kicker: I can't tell how the game designers got from FFS2 sensors to QSDS sensors. How did they determine that the TL10 Medium Military sensors are A16 P5 J8?
 
Avionics

Okay, looking at FFS2 avionics, the cost is trivial -- Cr17,000 to Cr25,000 for TL15 stuff; power is in the 10-20 kilowatt range; and volume is a tiny, tiny fraction of a cubic meter. In short, I don't know why avionics is in QSDS at all; rather, TF and NOE speeds are fixed solely by the starship's TL.

Comms

Radio comms in FFS2 are logarithmic by range, which is much more regular than in MT, although they're not as clearly named as MT's (you have to reference another table to see how range numbers map to distance benchmarks). Volume and price seem to be in the same ballpark as MT; they may be the same for all I can tell. Their prices tend to be much more fiddly; why set a price at Cr28,148? Are you sure it's not on sale somewhere for Cr28,144?

Aside from my ranting nits, the comms tables do the same thing that MT's comms tables do.

Sensors

I like the QSDS sensor string. Those three numbers sum it up for me: A16 P5 J8. The A and P numbers are DMs to roll in attaining a target lock during combat. The J is a negative DM against gaining that lock, and a positive DM in breaking the lock.

I have one problem with those numbers: they require a table lookup in combat -- the one place where things ought to be streamlined. It would be far better to rate the sensors using battle numbers, and modify them (if necessary!) for routine scanning. Thus the sensors above would be A1 P0 J1, and sensors could run into the negative values (perhaps that can somehow be avoided as well).

Anyway. I never did get the hang of FFS2 sensors. How sensitivity combines with skill into a task roll against a ship's signal conceptually makes sense, but the details always escaped me. Bruce Macintosh's definitive sensor rules helped some, but in the end it all just seemed tiring.

Also, I can't resolve sensor area into a displacement. I suppose, then, that sensors are actually integrated into the surface of the hull, which is intriguing. So, sensors have no volume requirement at all, merely a cost -- assuming you can cram them onto the hull, that is.

And here's the kicker: I can't tell how the game designers got from FFS2 sensors to QSDS sensors. How did they determine that the TL10 Medium Military sensors are A16 P5 J8?
 
Well Robject, I don't know how much I can help you with the math and rules questions, but from what I know of the system, your take looks good.

I have decided that QSDS ranks right there with MT as my favorite ship-design rules, with LBB2 still my fave. I have only recently gotten interested in designing larger (1000+) military ships and am currently reading up on my rules to get a better feel for combat. I would like to use MT, but those darn laser turrents in the SSDS almost make me drool....can you figure out anyway to port them over? At a minimum, one could add 'barbette' to the MT design chart, and potentially reduce the power requirements of the lasers (say 50Mw per TL?) and add in some 5 mount laser turrents.

Can't wrap my mind around FFS1...tried a couple of times (it took me while of on and off trying before I 'got' MT, so who knows how long before I can grock to FFS!), so maybe you can give some insight here. Also, from what I read above, I can basically transplant SSDS sensors into MT, sans the 'Area'?

RR
 
Well Robject, I don't know how much I can help you with the math and rules questions, but from what I know of the system, your take looks good.

I have decided that QSDS ranks right there with MT as my favorite ship-design rules, with LBB2 still my fave. I have only recently gotten interested in designing larger (1000+) military ships and am currently reading up on my rules to get a better feel for combat. I would like to use MT, but those darn laser turrents in the SSDS almost make me drool....can you figure out anyway to port them over? At a minimum, one could add 'barbette' to the MT design chart, and potentially reduce the power requirements of the lasers (say 50Mw per TL?) and add in some 5 mount laser turrents.

Can't wrap my mind around FFS1...tried a couple of times (it took me while of on and off trying before I 'got' MT, so who knows how long before I can grock to FFS!), so maybe you can give some insight here. Also, from what I read above, I can basically transplant SSDS sensors into MT, sans the 'Area'?

RR
 
I bet those SSDS laser turrets are actually batteries. What do you think? (That might explain the power usage). If so, then they work rather well -- you only roll once for the battery to hit, no more rolling for each gun, so pick your batteries wisely. I like it. I wonder if they'd port back to MT as-is?

FFS1 and FFS2 have basically the same weapons design systems; FFS2's system is mature and complete and error-free. They're also very, very painful to use without a spreadsheet. Luckily we have the T4 weapon design spreadsheet, if you're into that kind of thing.

As far as sensors go, I'm more interested in using MT sensors and not worrying about the ones in T4.
 
I bet those SSDS laser turrets are actually batteries. What do you think? (That might explain the power usage). If so, then they work rather well -- you only roll once for the battery to hit, no more rolling for each gun, so pick your batteries wisely. I like it. I wonder if they'd port back to MT as-is?

FFS1 and FFS2 have basically the same weapons design systems; FFS2's system is mature and complete and error-free. They're also very, very painful to use without a spreadsheet. Luckily we have the T4 weapon design spreadsheet, if you're into that kind of thing.

As far as sensors go, I'm more interested in using MT sensors and not worrying about the ones in T4.
 
Batteries might explain it, but the power levels are much lower than MT. Guess you could just port it, and make lasers the weapons of choice, I would imagine. I am also thinking of tossing the Hardpints rule out, except for cost per weapon mounted. I figure power and space are enough limits, especially in MT (please don't take this as 'munchinism', just never really liked the hardpoint idea, except as a mounting).

As for sensors, why not just add the additional sensors into the Active/Passive Arrays packages? You could make tables for each TL of the package you construct that you feel are appropriate and save the totals for continuous use:

Scout Array (TL 10) - Active(System)/Passive(Interstellar)/Communications(System)
Power: 5.679 Volume: 2.192 Weight: 1.087 Price: 11.362

Contains all items listed in the EMS Passive & Active Arrays, Low Pen Densitometer, Neutrino Sensor, 2 Radios, 2 Laser Communicators, 2 Maser Communicators.

TL12:
Power: 4.448 Volume: 20.22 Weight: 7.058 Price: 6.311

Contains TL12 versions of the TL10 version, but adds in a High Pen Densitometer, a total of 4 Maser Communicators and 4 Laser Communicators as well as 2 Radios.

Pretty sure I did all the number crunching right, but did it on the fly. Is that kind of what you were looking for?
 
Batteries might explain it, but the power levels are much lower than MT. Guess you could just port it, and make lasers the weapons of choice, I would imagine. I am also thinking of tossing the Hardpints rule out, except for cost per weapon mounted. I figure power and space are enough limits, especially in MT (please don't take this as 'munchinism', just never really liked the hardpoint idea, except as a mounting).

As for sensors, why not just add the additional sensors into the Active/Passive Arrays packages? You could make tables for each TL of the package you construct that you feel are appropriate and save the totals for continuous use:

Scout Array (TL 10) - Active(System)/Passive(Interstellar)/Communications(System)
Power: 5.679 Volume: 2.192 Weight: 1.087 Price: 11.362

Contains all items listed in the EMS Passive & Active Arrays, Low Pen Densitometer, Neutrino Sensor, 2 Radios, 2 Laser Communicators, 2 Maser Communicators.

TL12:
Power: 4.448 Volume: 20.22 Weight: 7.058 Price: 6.311

Contains TL12 versions of the TL10 version, but adds in a High Pen Densitometer, a total of 4 Maser Communicators and 4 Laser Communicators as well as 2 Radios.

Pretty sure I did all the number crunching right, but did it on the fly. Is that kind of what you were looking for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ManOfGrey
T4 Only: Question regarding fighter craft sensor ratings in T4.
Replies
8
Views
379
AnotherDilbert
A
robject
QSDS from a 2015 view
Replies
5
Views
4K
David Johansen
D
robject
Fire, Fusion, and Steel 3
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
aramis
aramis
S
T4 Only: Book B: FF&S Jump Drive
Replies
19
Views
7K
snrdg082102
S
S
TNE/T4 Sensor collision avoidance range & T4 A/P/J values
Replies
0
Views
2K
snrdg082102
S
Back
Top