<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.