You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Traveller 5th Edition
- Thread starter Avery
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Avery:
This particular forum is going to talk about the next edition of Traveller and what it will and won?t have in it. I intend to post a Vision Statement, an outline of the Core rules book, and a structure for the T5 line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess the first question would be: What is the current status of T5? Are we likely to see it in six months, a year, longer? From what I've seen and heard about it, it seems good. But I've not heard anything for almost a year (IIRC).
This particular forum is going to talk about the next edition of Traveller and what it will and won?t have in it. I intend to post a Vision Statement, an outline of the Core rules book, and a structure for the T5 line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess the first question would be: What is the current status of T5? Are we likely to see it in six months, a year, longer? From what I've seen and heard about it, it seems good. But I've not heard anything for almost a year (IIRC).
I hope I don't get in trouble here, but I'd like to see T5 simplified. I own some T4 stuff (didn't like the setting vision), and I own all the CT stuff (and much of the MT material, although I hated the setting again).
I'd like to see something similar to what MT SHOULD have been - an improved CT, with the MT skill and task system, although please throw away and bury the MT starship system and go back to High Guard.
Now, I'll go one step further here, and suggest that given all the activity, you might consider making a d20 version of T5? Traveller's core 2d6 system shows its age, and the d20 system is easily usable. [And all the CT folks are going to lynch me now as a heretical traitor!]
I'd even be willing to help on the conversion!
DonM.
I'd like to see something similar to what MT SHOULD have been - an improved CT, with the MT skill and task system, although please throw away and bury the MT starship system and go back to High Guard.
Now, I'll go one step further here, and suggest that given all the activity, you might consider making a d20 version of T5? Traveller's core 2d6 system shows its age, and the d20 system is easily usable. [And all the CT folks are going to lynch me now as a heretical traitor!]
I'd even be willing to help on the conversion!
DonM.
I know I'm in the minority, but I like T4 mechanics. They do seem to recapture the simplicity of the CT system. With some additions (a slightly revised task system with the IHTIT rule) it makes for a really fast and intuitive system, much more than MT. I've played T4 for awhile and even with a complete novice (several in fact) its never taken anyone of them more than a minute to fully grasp the system. This is not something I can say for MT.
I also like the T4 mechanics, however, perhaps because of the long use, I still prefer the 2d6 system. I have two complaints on the T4 system: 1) the character generation is boring, I would rather use the advanced mode presented in Books 4-7 and MT; and 2) the starship design was too complex. Book 2 has the best starship design in all Traveller editions. There are a lot of nice ideas in latter books such as High Guard and MT, however, almost anything necessary for roleplaying is covered by the B2 system. Kurt Brown published a nice piece about several Traveller design systems <http://www.rpgaction.com/articles/columns.asp?id=62> and I agree almost interely with him. An improved B2 system could be presented in the core book, addressing the roleplaying requirements, while a supplement book could be published to satisfy the gearheads.
I am more of a CT/MT guy myself. I love the CT/MT style character generation, as well as the Bk2/HG style starships, but I can see how some people would be put off by this- they want more control over their characters, and more detail on their ships. I like the idea of additional sourcebooks for the starships, but what about the character generation? I guess I don't see an entire sourcebook devoted to other "official" methods of generating characters...
[This message has been edited by ~dude (edited 20 February 2001).]
[This message has been edited by ~dude (edited 20 February 2001).]
I think if past versions are to be used as a guideline for T5, MT should be used as a model above T4, but hopefully it won't slavishly follow either.
Although indifferently executed, MT at least made an honest attempt to integrate all of the rules into a single, cohesive system. T5 needs more, not less, of this philosophy. To me, T4 felt like a retreat into the past, with too much carried over directly from CT and too many patched-together 'fixes.' By contrast, T5 must be a bold move into the future.
I humbly suggest that MT, not T4 (or 'The Traveller Book') be used as the baseline from which revisions and improvements are made. Sure MT had problems, not all of them editorial, but I still feel it was a move in the proper direction. T4, by rejecting this development and returning to CT as a baseline, tried to re-invent the wheel, and ended up with a slipshod wheel-copy.
As Marc's T5 Vision states, CT will still exist as an option for those who prefer its simple, 'classic' style. Therefore, I see no need for T5 to hew as close to its CT roots as both MT and T4 tried to -- the goal behind T5 should be making the best possible game system, maintaining what 'works' from previous editions, but unafraid to make aggressive changes and improvements where warranted. CT was a product of the 1970s; T5 must be able to hold up into the 2010s.
Although indifferently executed, MT at least made an honest attempt to integrate all of the rules into a single, cohesive system. T5 needs more, not less, of this philosophy. To me, T4 felt like a retreat into the past, with too much carried over directly from CT and too many patched-together 'fixes.' By contrast, T5 must be a bold move into the future.
I humbly suggest that MT, not T4 (or 'The Traveller Book') be used as the baseline from which revisions and improvements are made. Sure MT had problems, not all of them editorial, but I still feel it was a move in the proper direction. T4, by rejecting this development and returning to CT as a baseline, tried to re-invent the wheel, and ended up with a slipshod wheel-copy.
As Marc's T5 Vision states, CT will still exist as an option for those who prefer its simple, 'classic' style. Therefore, I see no need for T5 to hew as close to its CT roots as both MT and T4 tried to -- the goal behind T5 should be making the best possible game system, maintaining what 'works' from previous editions, but unafraid to make aggressive changes and improvements where warranted. CT was a product of the 1970s; T5 must be able to hold up into the 2010s.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Responding to myself (how gauche!):
the goal behind T5 should be making the best possible game system, maintaining what 'works' from previous editions, but unafraid to make aggressive changes and improvements where warranted. CT was a product of the 1970s; T5 must be able to hold up into the 2010s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Looking at this the next day, I realize my intention may be unclear. By no means am I calling for the kind of wholesale mechanical-system changes TNE made -- I'm actually very fond of the MT task system and would adopt it virtually unmodified. What I had in mind are areas like Trade and World Creation. In the wake of GT's 'First In' and 'Far Trader,' the CT/MT/T4 approaches in these areas are looking awfully creaky.
Obviously in the core rules we'd want simpler, less detailed systems than those books, but the need for playable simplicity shouldn't lead us to just dust off the same tired old Book 3 systems. If Traveller is to remain a legitimate sf vision and not simply 70s-retro a proactive attempt needs to be made to keep the game concepts as current and 'up-to-date' as possible.
the goal behind T5 should be making the best possible game system, maintaining what 'works' from previous editions, but unafraid to make aggressive changes and improvements where warranted. CT was a product of the 1970s; T5 must be able to hold up into the 2010s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Looking at this the next day, I realize my intention may be unclear. By no means am I calling for the kind of wholesale mechanical-system changes TNE made -- I'm actually very fond of the MT task system and would adopt it virtually unmodified. What I had in mind are areas like Trade and World Creation. In the wake of GT's 'First In' and 'Far Trader,' the CT/MT/T4 approaches in these areas are looking awfully creaky.
Obviously in the core rules we'd want simpler, less detailed systems than those books, but the need for playable simplicity shouldn't lead us to just dust off the same tired old Book 3 systems. If Traveller is to remain a legitimate sf vision and not simply 70s-retro a proactive attempt needs to be made to keep the game concepts as current and 'up-to-date' as possible.
ImperialOne
SOC-6
I agree that playabilty is important, yet a well-written & conceived set of rules can get away with a certain amount of detail/complexity.
We could go on all day/night discussing foibles of the CT rules vs. the MT rules vs. the T4 setup...
I do not think T5 should feel obligated to reproduce any of these systems in particular, though inspiration & lessons may be taken from them.
By the way, what is the dice mechanic going to be (3D6, D20, D100). Though I like the 3D6 system, I think it may be a bit outdated and provide for strange probability models.
We could go on all day/night discussing foibles of the CT rules vs. the MT rules vs. the T4 setup...
I do not think T5 should feel obligated to reproduce any of these systems in particular, though inspiration & lessons may be taken from them.
By the way, what is the dice mechanic going to be (3D6, D20, D100). Though I like the 3D6 system, I think it may be a bit outdated and provide for strange probability models.
I must say that the one thing I'd be most interested in seeing in the new system would be seemless ground and starship combat and a fast and easy vehicle design system. I think High Guard was wonderful, but vehicles designed under Striker, MegaTraveller and T4 were just a huge, nasty headache. I don't want to spend a hour when I need to have the stats for a truck.
(Okay, now that I think of it that is really 2 things)
------------------
Dr. Skull
[This message has been edited by DrSkull (edited 21 February 2001).]
[This message has been edited by DrSkull (edited 21 February 2001).]
(Okay, now that I think of it that is really 2 things)
------------------
Dr. Skull
[This message has been edited by DrSkull (edited 21 February 2001).]
[This message has been edited by DrSkull (edited 21 February 2001).]
StrikerFan
SOC-10
Personally, while I enjoyed High Guard, it was a bit too abstract for roleplaying with. A great set of rules for making fleets, certainly, but it was a bit overly limited (IMHO) for the small ships that PCs have available. If I were designing T5, I would take the same approach that MT tried to (but didn't finish): an improved, more detailed CT, using what was developed in Striker to expand what existed in CT and High Guard. But then, I loved Striker, and I enjoyed MT (even if the ship DAMAGE rules needed to be replaced, reusing High Guard made little sense given that each segment of the ship already had damage points calculated as part of the design process).
Was MT ship design complicated? Yep. Was it flexible? Oh, yes. Those two go hand in hand, most of the time. But there are ways to simplify things for those who want to build ships but not deal with all the possible complications. For example, provide standard building block pieces (rather like Book 2 used) that are calculated from the more detailed rules, so a ship designed using the building blocks is using the same rules as the ships designed using the more detailed rules.
Was MT ship design complicated? Yep. Was it flexible? Oh, yes. Those two go hand in hand, most of the time. But there are ways to simplify things for those who want to build ships but not deal with all the possible complications. For example, provide standard building block pieces (rather like Book 2 used) that are calculated from the more detailed rules, so a ship designed using the building blocks is using the same rules as the ships designed using the more detailed rules.
I guess the reason I liked High Guard so much was that I really came to it late in the game. I didn't design a lot of ships when I played CT, but I too was a big fan of Striker and designed Striker vehicles. Then when MT came out I designed a pile of ships and vehicles with its design sequence, it was fun to a degree but more work than was really necessary. I don't want to even think about T4 design sequences--yuck.
Then, recently I went back to basics and started monekying areound with High Guard. It was like a breath of fresh air. Whipping up 2-3 ships in a half hour was possible. I started to dread the thought of Striker/MT design greatly. If I need a TL-8 battle tank or a TL-10 ore-carrier, I don't want to have to fiddle back and forth for hours to get it to work.
I do agree that a compromise might indeed be possible. A basic vehcile and starship construction system with basic hulls/chassis and customizeable space forming the basic system and a more detailed "behind the scenes" system for the real gearheads. I would prefer something fast and easy (that covers ground vehicles, grav vehciles and aircraft, as well as spaceships) as part of the core system.
------------------
Dr. Skull
Then, recently I went back to basics and started monekying areound with High Guard. It was like a breath of fresh air. Whipping up 2-3 ships in a half hour was possible. I started to dread the thought of Striker/MT design greatly. If I need a TL-8 battle tank or a TL-10 ore-carrier, I don't want to have to fiddle back and forth for hours to get it to work.
I do agree that a compromise might indeed be possible. A basic vehcile and starship construction system with basic hulls/chassis and customizeable space forming the basic system and a more detailed "behind the scenes" system for the real gearheads. I would prefer something fast and easy (that covers ground vehicles, grav vehciles and aircraft, as well as spaceships) as part of the core system.
------------------
Dr. Skull
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StrikerFan:
Was MT ship design complicated? Yep. Was it flexible? Oh, yes. Those two go hand in hand, most of the time. But there are ways to simplify things for those who want to build ships but not deal with all the possible complications. For example, provide standard building block pieces (rather like Book 2 used) that are calculated from the more detailed rules, so a ship designed using the building blocks is using the same rules as the ships designed using the more detailed rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem with such a system is that you can end up with something like T4's QSDS, combining the worst of both worlds -- you're still dealing with multi-place decimals and counting up Megawatts and such, but you're not given explanations or allowed to fiddle around with anything -- using the same rules but without the options doesn't lead to simplicity, it just leads to sub-optimal designs.
IMO the Core 'simple' system shouldn't just be a list of plug-in components from the complex system, it should operate in an entirely different, more abstract, manner (think Book 2 -- not an xxxMw power plant, but Power Plant C). The simple system should be for people who want to design vehicles and ships on the fly without having to juggle whole streams of numbers -- with the time and inclination they can go back later to convert/re-engineer under the complex system and figure out 'real' values, but in the mean time they can get on with actually playing the game.
Values would have to be checked and optimized to ensure rough inter-system compatability, but a +/-20% or so 'fuzziness threshhold' should also be allowed; the idea is 'close enough' estimation, not gearhead minimaxing.
As for the MT design system, my biggest gripe was always the lack of examples, both of process and of finished product -- I was never confident that I was interpreting the rules properly, and was always unsure how my finished designs 'stacked up.' A particular problem was the various inter-dependent and iterative sequences -- unless you have an intuitive understanding of such things (which I don't) or lots of design experience, it's hard to estimate up-front how these values are going to interact, and where the optimal compromise-points lie.
I don't mind complicated systems, as long as I have clear and concise examples to follow, models to work towards, or even instructional sidebar 'design tips': something to let me know I'm on the right track -- MT didn't provide any of these.
Was MT ship design complicated? Yep. Was it flexible? Oh, yes. Those two go hand in hand, most of the time. But there are ways to simplify things for those who want to build ships but not deal with all the possible complications. For example, provide standard building block pieces (rather like Book 2 used) that are calculated from the more detailed rules, so a ship designed using the building blocks is using the same rules as the ships designed using the more detailed rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem with such a system is that you can end up with something like T4's QSDS, combining the worst of both worlds -- you're still dealing with multi-place decimals and counting up Megawatts and such, but you're not given explanations or allowed to fiddle around with anything -- using the same rules but without the options doesn't lead to simplicity, it just leads to sub-optimal designs.
IMO the Core 'simple' system shouldn't just be a list of plug-in components from the complex system, it should operate in an entirely different, more abstract, manner (think Book 2 -- not an xxxMw power plant, but Power Plant C). The simple system should be for people who want to design vehicles and ships on the fly without having to juggle whole streams of numbers -- with the time and inclination they can go back later to convert/re-engineer under the complex system and figure out 'real' values, but in the mean time they can get on with actually playing the game.
Values would have to be checked and optimized to ensure rough inter-system compatability, but a +/-20% or so 'fuzziness threshhold' should also be allowed; the idea is 'close enough' estimation, not gearhead minimaxing.
As for the MT design system, my biggest gripe was always the lack of examples, both of process and of finished product -- I was never confident that I was interpreting the rules properly, and was always unsure how my finished designs 'stacked up.' A particular problem was the various inter-dependent and iterative sequences -- unless you have an intuitive understanding of such things (which I don't) or lots of design experience, it's hard to estimate up-front how these values are going to interact, and where the optimal compromise-points lie.
I don't mind complicated systems, as long as I have clear and concise examples to follow, models to work towards, or even instructional sidebar 'design tips': something to let me know I'm on the right track -- MT didn't provide any of these.
My first Question is Which is your target public? Which is your marketing strategy?
Game design and format comes after these are set.
If you're going to sell it for grognards, it will give a lot of rrom for a more complex game, but this will SEVERELY limit your market.
Many companies have died trying to make their games more and more complex.
If in the other hand You're looking for new gamers and making REAl money and growing far future entreprises, I guess the game has to be as simple as possible without being simplistic.
Remember that a Business plan precedes product design.
In both cases I'm more than willing to help the design process, both as a Business professor or as a military engineer (Yes, Striker really shaped my carrer decision back then).
Best regards
------------------
Vicente
Game design and format comes after these are set.
If you're going to sell it for grognards, it will give a lot of rrom for a more complex game, but this will SEVERELY limit your market.
Many companies have died trying to make their games more and more complex.
If in the other hand You're looking for new gamers and making REAl money and growing far future entreprises, I guess the game has to be as simple as possible without being simplistic.
Remember that a Business plan precedes product design.
In both cases I'm more than willing to help the design process, both as a Business professor or as a military engineer (Yes, Striker really shaped my carrer decision back then).
Best regards
------------------
Vicente
The goal should be to get as many grognards and as many new players to the game as possible. That's just what Wizards of the Coast did with D&D 3e, and they largely suceeded, so it can be done. The key was the fact that they made a good product that was smooth to use and they had a great marketing strategy (a year-long planned tease). It retained the feel of the old game and to the key features while smoothing out the mechanics.
So, for T5 to be Traveller, it's got to have a strong feel of continuity, but the mechanics must be smoothed out. That says to me 3rd Imperium (or 4th) and NO HALF DICE.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
So, for T5 to be Traveller, it's got to have a strong feel of continuity, but the mechanics must be smoothed out. That says to me 3rd Imperium (or 4th) and NO HALF DICE.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
Hmm T5,
I liked T4's attempt to return to the classic traveler mechanics and feel. I also liked the idea of a fairly simple set of core rules with more detailed and complex rules as options. Most people I knew added more complex rules on top of CT and such, but a simple set of core rules makes it easier to introduce the system to new players.
I liked T4's attempt to return to the classic traveler mechanics and feel. I also liked the idea of a fairly simple set of core rules with more detailed and complex rules as options. Most people I knew added more complex rules on top of CT and such, but a simple set of core rules makes it easier to introduce the system to new players.
StrikerFan
SOC-10
IMO the Core 'simple' system shouldn't just be a list of plug-in components from the complex system, it should operate in an entirely different, more abstract, manner (think Book 2 -- not an xxxMw power plant, but Power Plant C). The simple system should be for people who want to design vehicles and ships on the fly without having to juggle whole streams of numbers -- with the time and inclination they can go back later to convert/re-engineer under the complex system and figure out 'real' values, but in the mean time they can get on with actually playing the game.
Values would have to be checked and optimized to ensure rough inter-system compatability, but a +/-20% or so 'fuzziness threshhold' should also be allowed; the idea is 'close enough' estimation, not gearhead minimaxing.[/B][/QUOTE]
Mmmmm, I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. I HATE having to redesign everything for a game, just because a more detailed system has come out that changes things around entirely. Book 2 vs High Guard, for instance: you could do things in High Guard that were completely impossible in Book 2, and not just because the systems didn't appear in Book 2, but because the underlying rules changed.
If, on the other hand, the components are built up from the more detailed layer, the designs made up using the less-detailed system can co-exist with designs made using the more detailed system. They might be slightly sub-optimal, for a given concept, but they will be MUCH closer than they might otherwise be.
StrikerFan
Values would have to be checked and optimized to ensure rough inter-system compatability, but a +/-20% or so 'fuzziness threshhold' should also be allowed; the idea is 'close enough' estimation, not gearhead minimaxing.[/B][/QUOTE]
Mmmmm, I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. I HATE having to redesign everything for a game, just because a more detailed system has come out that changes things around entirely. Book 2 vs High Guard, for instance: you could do things in High Guard that were completely impossible in Book 2, and not just because the systems didn't appear in Book 2, but because the underlying rules changed.
If, on the other hand, the components are built up from the more detailed layer, the designs made up using the less-detailed system can co-exist with designs made using the more detailed system. They might be slightly sub-optimal, for a given concept, but they will be MUCH closer than they might otherwise be.
StrikerFan
StrikerFan
SOC-10
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
Then, recently I went back to basics and started monekying areound with High Guard. It was like a breath of fresh air. Whipping up 2-3 ships in a half hour was possible. I started to dread the thought of Striker/MT design greatly. If I need a TL-8 battle tank or a TL-10 ore-carrier, I don't want to have to fiddle back and forth for hours to get it to work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<chuckle> I do remember the High Guard days, and how I would sit in class and crank out a couple of cruisers before class was over, because I had most of the sequence memorized. Striker and MT were more detailed, no question, and there was more to do and more going to and fro to get the weight down or the power up, etc. High Guard was great for a fleet battle game (like TCS), ease of design was certainly there. MT gave more control of more options, but it was certainly more complex, and while I did lots of Striker vehicles with a calculator, I mostly did the piles of MT ships with a spreadsheet because of the interplay of the different systems.
StrikerFan
Then, recently I went back to basics and started monekying areound with High Guard. It was like a breath of fresh air. Whipping up 2-3 ships in a half hour was possible. I started to dread the thought of Striker/MT design greatly. If I need a TL-8 battle tank or a TL-10 ore-carrier, I don't want to have to fiddle back and forth for hours to get it to work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<chuckle> I do remember the High Guard days, and how I would sit in class and crank out a couple of cruisers before class was over, because I had most of the sequence memorized. Striker and MT were more detailed, no question, and there was more to do and more going to and fro to get the weight down or the power up, etc. High Guard was great for a fleet battle game (like TCS), ease of design was certainly there. MT gave more control of more options, but it was certainly more complex, and while I did lots of Striker vehicles with a calculator, I mostly did the piles of MT ships with a spreadsheet because of the interplay of the different systems.
StrikerFan
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StrikerFan:
I HATE having to redesign everything for a game, just because a more detailed system has come out that changes things around entirely. Book 2 vs High Guard, for instance: you could do things in High Guard that were completely impossible in Book 2, and not just because the systems didn't appear in Book 2, but because the underlying rules changed.
If, on the other hand, the components are built up from the more detailed layer, the designs made up using the less-detailed system can co-exist with designs made using the more detailed system. They might be slightly sub-optimal, for a given concept, but they will be MUCH closer than they might otherwise be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I still think there's room for a compromise. In my mind the complex system is established first and the simple system's components are drawn from it, just like you want. However, once we have our list of components we then develop a simpler, more abstracted, way of assembling them.
In QSDS you still tally up Mw of power use, figure surface area, assign workstations, and a bunch of other number-juggling which, since you aren't allowed to change or optimize anything, seems rather pointless; some of these steps should be able to be abstracted without seriously damaging inter-system compatability.
By way of example, in FF&S you're allowed to mount as many turrets as you want on a ship so long as you can account for volume, power use, and surface area; all of which can be juggled and optimized if you're willing to take the time and effort. In QSDS you're given a list of pre-made turret weapons (i.e. no juggling) but you still have to account the volume, power use, and surface area. Couldn't we instead just establish a fixed-value rule of thumb like '1 turret per 100 dtons'? The end result (number of turrets allowed on the ship) will be the same -- the rule-of-thumb having been defined through examination of trends and values in the complex system -- but it requires a lot less work from the prospective ship-designer.
Such 'arbitrary' restrictions might not go down well with number-crunching gearheads, but are they even going to use this system? Did HG-heads design many Book 2 ships? I agree, for consistency's sake, that it should be possible to convert between systems without doing a total re-design, but since I'd imagine folks are by and large going to stick with their complexity-level of choice, actual conversion probably won't be all that common an occurence, and IMO shouldn't be the primary concern in developing a 'simple-alternative' craft design system.
I HATE having to redesign everything for a game, just because a more detailed system has come out that changes things around entirely. Book 2 vs High Guard, for instance: you could do things in High Guard that were completely impossible in Book 2, and not just because the systems didn't appear in Book 2, but because the underlying rules changed.
If, on the other hand, the components are built up from the more detailed layer, the designs made up using the less-detailed system can co-exist with designs made using the more detailed system. They might be slightly sub-optimal, for a given concept, but they will be MUCH closer than they might otherwise be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I still think there's room for a compromise. In my mind the complex system is established first and the simple system's components are drawn from it, just like you want. However, once we have our list of components we then develop a simpler, more abstracted, way of assembling them.
In QSDS you still tally up Mw of power use, figure surface area, assign workstations, and a bunch of other number-juggling which, since you aren't allowed to change or optimize anything, seems rather pointless; some of these steps should be able to be abstracted without seriously damaging inter-system compatability.
By way of example, in FF&S you're allowed to mount as many turrets as you want on a ship so long as you can account for volume, power use, and surface area; all of which can be juggled and optimized if you're willing to take the time and effort. In QSDS you're given a list of pre-made turret weapons (i.e. no juggling) but you still have to account the volume, power use, and surface area. Couldn't we instead just establish a fixed-value rule of thumb like '1 turret per 100 dtons'? The end result (number of turrets allowed on the ship) will be the same -- the rule-of-thumb having been defined through examination of trends and values in the complex system -- but it requires a lot less work from the prospective ship-designer.
Such 'arbitrary' restrictions might not go down well with number-crunching gearheads, but are they even going to use this system? Did HG-heads design many Book 2 ships? I agree, for consistency's sake, that it should be possible to convert between systems without doing a total re-design, but since I'd imagine folks are by and large going to stick with their complexity-level of choice, actual conversion probably won't be all that common an occurence, and IMO shouldn't be the primary concern in developing a 'simple-alternative' craft design system.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 669
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 277
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 432
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 603
