Universal Ship Profile?
- Thread starter roger
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Hi Roger, and welcome aboard. Well its an old question also posted here and still no definitive answer.
I just looked in the "probably final" erratas too and while it still refers to the USP, even correcting the fact that in one place it should be in Bold type as a section heading, there is no definition of it. The USP code is likely identical to that from CT Book 5 "High Guard" if you know anybody with it but since the THB refers to it, while never actually explaining or using it I think its just another residual system that didn't get cleaned up in the final edit.
I just looked in the "probably final" erratas too and while it still refers to the USP, even correcting the fact that in one place it should be in Bold type as a section heading, there is no definition of it. The USP code is likely identical to that from CT Book 5 "High Guard" if you know anybody with it but since the THB refers to it, while never actually explaining or using it I think its just another residual system that didn't get cleaned up in the final edit.
To renew an old discussion...
My 2cd printing T20 handbook, supposed to have all of the errata, lists the individual USP codes, but not the format for the whole code.
As far as I can see, the restrictions on using the same weapon in different mounts seems to have been lifted, so some new notation to show Batteries for each mounting type would have to be used.
EX: I am sure High guard said each weapon could only be present in one mount. If you had a PA bay, for example, you could not mount Partical accelerator turrets or a PA spinal mount as well.
I also do not see a batteries bearing table, so I guess that T20 allows all batteries to fire at any target at any time.
Beyound those changes, and in the asbsence of any thing different,I would assume that T20 would format the USP the same as high guard.
In the extended world data forums there is pretty heated argumenets that since oldtimers know how to decode UWP any changes would have to be bolted on rather than rearranging or redefining the basic code, and ship codes would have the same requirements.
just my opinion, YMMV of course.
Mr Tek
My 2cd printing T20 handbook, supposed to have all of the errata, lists the individual USP codes, but not the format for the whole code.
As far as I can see, the restrictions on using the same weapon in different mounts seems to have been lifted, so some new notation to show Batteries for each mounting type would have to be used.
EX: I am sure High guard said each weapon could only be present in one mount. If you had a PA bay, for example, you could not mount Partical accelerator turrets or a PA spinal mount as well.
I also do not see a batteries bearing table, so I guess that T20 allows all batteries to fire at any target at any time.
Beyound those changes, and in the asbsence of any thing different,I would assume that T20 would format the USP the same as high guard.
In the extended world data forums there is pretty heated argumenets that since oldtimers know how to decode UWP any changes would have to be bolted on rather than rearranging or redefining the basic code, and ship codes would have the same requirements.
just my opinion, YMMV of course.
Mr Tek
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Since T20 doesn't use the USP format, I'd love to know why spinal/bay/turret weapons are mutually exclusive (page 272 under spinal mounts).
The MT format allows a spinal weapon and bays to be the same weapom type, T20's format could too.
The MT format allows a spinal weapon and bays to be the same weapom type, T20's format could too.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I can only think of one reason. Play balance. Imagine, with the T20 rules on Meson Crits, a Cruiser or Drednaught with a Meson Spinal and a couple of dozen 100T Meson Bays. You could kill an entire Batron with one of those ships in one turn.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I don't think that T20 is all that backwardly compatible. The biggest change IMHO is making the power plants smaller.
In High Guard a power plant 2 for a type S scout/courier takes up 6t at TL9-12, 4t at TL13-14, and 2t at TL15.
The same power plant in T20 is 3t at TL9-13, 2t at TL13-14, and 1t at TL15.
Scaled up to the larger warships, the ones with power plants 10-20% of the ship, and you get a huge saving in tonnage. Enough to add armour when it wouldn't be possible under High Guard.
The T20 system is similar to High Guard, I'll agree, but that change to power plant size has enough of an impact to call it's compatibility with High Guard, for large warships especially, into question.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Leave out the spinal mount entirely and only carry the bays - as you've said, they are all you need in T20Originally posted by Bhoins:
I can only think of one reason. Play balance. Imagine, with the T20 rules on Meson Crits, a Cruiser or Drednaught with a Meson Spinal and a couple of dozen 100T Meson Bays. You could kill an entire Batron with one of those ships in one turn.Not that you couldn't without the Spinal anyway, but still.
I sort of wish the rules would go in the opposite direction -- making things more bulky, so that you can't have everything you want out of a ship, but must instead prioritize the ship's systems. Lots of armor, or better weapons, or bigger engines, or more small craft? I like the idea of balanced rules and making tradeoffs.
Quite honestly, I think a lot of **** got left in because, by the time we really got to cranking on the rules for ships, we were half way through the playtest...
Starship combat got really hosed; we'd been tweaking the system (Hunter was excellent at addressing concerns, even if he did occasionally show some well earned ire at some of us...) a lot, and finally had an excellent ballance, but then at the last bit, and due to near-universal griping, it was decided to double the XP rates... which added another 2-4 levels per character, and unbalanced a lot.
The limits were left in originally to keep backwards compatibility. But later changes came, and made certain bits less than desirable, and nearly senseless; the no bays matching your spinals being a prime case in point. It quite simply got overlooked, and probably should have gone the way of the Dodo, but that's hunter's call for 2nd ed...
I think a HG baseline was the way to go, but all the restrictions should have been dropped from the text, and then added back as needed. Then again, it was planed up until near the end to have that USP from HG in the book, too. Dropping the USP deleted the need to have the restriction on matched bays and spinals, but they survived as an artifact... boy those were hectic times for the playtest.
Starship combat got really hosed; we'd been tweaking the system (Hunter was excellent at addressing concerns, even if he did occasionally show some well earned ire at some of us...) a lot, and finally had an excellent ballance, but then at the last bit, and due to near-universal griping, it was decided to double the XP rates... which added another 2-4 levels per character, and unbalanced a lot.
The limits were left in originally to keep backwards compatibility. But later changes came, and made certain bits less than desirable, and nearly senseless; the no bays matching your spinals being a prime case in point. It quite simply got overlooked, and probably should have gone the way of the Dodo, but that's hunter's call for 2nd ed...
I think a HG baseline was the way to go, but all the restrictions should have been dropped from the text, and then added back as needed. Then again, it was planed up until near the end to have that USP from HG in the book, too. Dropping the USP deleted the need to have the restriction on matched bays and spinals, but they survived as an artifact... boy those were hectic times for the playtest.
Similar threads
