Spacecraft and END

[Guest Black Lotus]

Okay, here's my problem. When simulating power sources for spacecraft, you have two options: buy ship systems with 0 END; or buy them with an END cost, and buy an Endurance Reserve for the ship. That in and of itself is fine, but Star HERO goes on to mention that when calculating the END consumption of systems that are always in operation -- life support, gravity, etcetera -- you treat those essential systems as Constant Area of Effect Attacks, and pay END for them on each of the ship's Phases.

 

That makes no sense to me, and here's why: Why should a ship with SPD 4 pay more END per Turn for its Life Support and artificial gravity than a ship with SPD 2? After all, it shouldn't cost twice as much END to distribute the same amount of air, generate the same amount of artificial gravity, etcetera -- for example, in two freighters with the same crew complement and of comparable mass, the ship with SPD 4 will pay twice as much for its constant systems as a ship with SPD 2, even though the same amount of air/ gravity must be generated.

 

I've thought of a few solutions. One is to make "constant" systems cost 0 END, and to have only "dynamic" systems cost END to use: weapons, shields, engines, etcetera. BUT, the problem with that lies in the shields: why should it cost two ships with different SPDs, but the same mass, different amounts of END to sustain the same strength of shielding for the same amount of time? Another solution is just to use the assumption the game makes for characters when out of combat: everyone acts on SPD 2. That way, no matter what its speed, ships pay for constant systems twice per Turn. Of course, weapons and other such systems cost END as they are used.

 

What do you think?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Yet another reason why SPD for vehicles is a bad idea.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Yet another reason why SPD for vehicles is a bad idea.

 

Chris, if you know a good way to remove SPD from the equation, let me know. If vehicles had no SPD, neither could characters, because they have to sync during combat and chases and the like. And I like the fact that some characters act faster than others.

 

Any ideas?

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

well here's the very simple way Lord Zod is running his Sci-Fi game (mind you it's a space opera more than hard sci fi so it's more flexible)

 

1 kg of starship fuel costs $150

 

Starship fuel is anything that powers a starship

 

1 kg will let you travel 10 lightyears, power your ship for 1 month (excluding active shielding (which we built as "costs end only to activate"), energy weapons, and Sub-light drives (which all take charges))

 

or 1kg will give you 720 charges (for use of said systems mentioned above)

[MitchellS]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

I always felt that the speed of the vehicle should be the speed of the pilot/operator but only in relation to combat aspects. In all other instances the speed of the vehicle is essentially 0 [or alternately 12]. You should just assign an endurance usage and assume when not in combat that the power plant meets the needs of the ship in question. Combat/conflict is the only time that energy would need to be allocated in unusual fashions.

[John Desmarais]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Chris, if you know a good way to remove SPD from the equation, let me know. If vehicles had no SPD, neither could characters, because they have to sync during combat and chases and the like. And I like the fact that some characters act faster than others.

 

Any ideas?

 

[HOUSERULE]

For the sake of perpetual systems (like life support) assume that all vehicles have a SPD of 12. FOr non-perpetual system, such as those that only get used in comabt, assume that all vehicles have an effective SPD equal to the SPD of the pilot.

[/HOUSERULE]

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

[HOUSERULE]

For the sake of perpetual systems (like life support) assume that all vehicles have a SPD of 12. FOr non-perpetual system, such as those that only get used in comabt, assume that all vehicles have an effective SPD equal to the SPD of the pilot.

[/HOUSERULE]

 

Isn't 12 a bit much, though? I'd considered using SPD 2, as you read. Could you explain the reasoning behind SPD 12 as constant?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Chris' date=' if you know a good way to remove SPD from the equation, let me know. [/quote']

 

I gave you one before (segmented movement).

 

This is, what, the third thread talking about how SPD used with vehicles gives unexpected responses. This is the third thread on which I've brought up the fact that SPD is broken when used with vehicles.

 

If you insist on using SPD for vehicles, allowing them to reduce their SPD to 2 out of combat is a valid solution.

 

Or just treat it all as if it were movement; vehicles don't pay END for their movement.

 

If you're using segmented movement for vehicles, assume that vehicles spend END every segment for any of their active Powers (effectively, SPD 12). Or buy them to 0 END Cost (alternately, you could apply the "Only While Connected To Vehicle Power Supply" Limitation to the 0 END Cost Advantage).

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Isn't 12 a bit much' date=' though? [/quote']

 

Just means you have to buy a bigger END Reserve. It's not like you're paying character points for it.

 

Seriously, I think either one will work, just depends on how you prefer to handle the mechanics. I prefer to make all "perpetual" systems SPD 3, just because most characters (and therefore, most ships) will be acting on SPD 3 and that way I can do the END costs all at once. Also that way the END costs for perpetual systems are easily comparable to END costs for weapons, etc.

 

 

bigdamnhero

"What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?"

[Fox1]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Yet another reason why SPD for vehicles is a bad idea.

 

Indeed.

[John Desmarais]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Isn't 12 a bit much' date=' though? I'd considered using SPD 2, as you read. Could you explain the reasoning behind SPD 12 as constant?[/quote']

 

It was completely arbitrary (it would, however, guarantee that every system in the ship would be active and available on ANY phase that a character might be active).

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

It was completely arbitrary (it would' date=' however, guarantee that every system in the ship would be active and available on ANY phase that a character might be active).[/quote']

 

Good point. The only diffculty I see with it is the challenge of "rerouting power" to systems, such as turning off Artificial Gravity and using the increased END for Shields or Weapons: those systems use so much END (since they use END every Phase) that it takes comparably less power to, say, fire a weapon. So turning OFF those SPD 12 systems can give your guns a lot of oomph.

 

Still, I'll have to playtest it and see how it works.

 

(But your way makes logical sense, though).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Instead of having Life Support cost END, take a -1/4 limitation that it has the Side Effect of draining x END per turn from the ship's batteries (or "costs X END per turn" for -1/4). This divorces the Life Support, for example, from Speed.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Instead of having Life Support cost END' date=' take a -1/4 limitation that it has the Side Effect of draining x END per turn from the ship's batteries (or "costs X END per turn" for -1/4). This divorces the Life Support, for example, from Speed.[/quote']

 

Hmmm, now that's an idea.

[MitchellS]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Instead of having Life Support cost END' date=' take a -1/4 limitation that it has the Side Effect of draining x END per turn from the ship's batteries (or "costs X END per turn" for -1/4). This divorces the Life Support, for example, from Speed.[/quote']

Yep, that's how I'd design everything now. Life support, sensors, common propulsion, etc. They'd all use a fixed amount per turn. If the total is 50 per turn then you know you need at least 50 rec on your battery for normal operations.

 

Then in combat situations I'd have ships operate at the speeds of the character doing something. If the helm pilot has a 3 speed then the ship can turn/maneuver as a 3. Same with gunners and other crew. So when you brings guns and shields online you know exactly how much end per turn needs to be sacrificed from other systems to make it all happen.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Yep, that's how I'd design everything now. Life support, sensors, propulsion, etc. They'd all use a fixed amount per turn. If the total is 50 per turn then you know you need at least 50 rec on your battery for normal operations.

 

Then in combat situations I'd have ships operate at the speeds of the character doing something. If the helm pilot has a 3 speed then the ship can turn/maneuver as a 3. Same with gunners and other crew. So when you brings guns and shields online you know exactly how much end per turn needs to be sacrificed from other systems to make it all happen.

 

I wouldn't change propulsion to END/ Turn, since you can vary your velocity. It's fair to pay END for the distance you move each Phase, because it always adds up to the total Inches/ Turn. Plus I use realistic velocity optional rule in many of my Sci-Fi campaigns.

[MitchellS]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

I wouldn't change propulsion to END/ Turn' date=' since you can vary your velocity. It's fair to pay END for the distance you move each Phase, because it always adds up to the total Inches/ Turn. Plus I use realistic velocity optional rule in many of my Sci-Fi campaigns.[/quote']

I changed the wording to "common" propulsion before you posted. That's the movement of the ship when it's just traveling at Warp 6, or whatever. In combat I'd make the ship pay for the movement based on the helmsman's speed. So basically you'd have 2 types of engines in a MP:

 

Impulse Engines Multipower

1) Maneuvering Engines: 50" Flight, side effect [costs 20 end per turn]: -1/4

2) Combat Engines: 50" Flight, costs end, x2 end [20]: -1/2

 

Then do the same thing with however you want to handle ftl flight.

 

So the stress of the engines in combat would use 60 end for a 3 speed pilot or 20 end just when doing normal, non-combat, maneuvers per turn.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

I changed the wording to "common" propulsion before you posted. That's the movement of the ship when it's just traveling at Warp 6, or whatever. In combat I'd make the ship pay for the movement based on the helmsman's speed. So basically you'd have 2 types of engines in a MP:

 

Impulse Engines Multipower

1) Maneuvering Engines: 50" Flight, side effect [costs 20 end per turn]: -1/4

2) Combat Engines: 50" Flight, costs end, x2 end [20]: -1/2

 

Then do the same thing with however you want to handle ftl flight.

 

So the stress of the engines in combat would use 60 end for a 3 speed pilot or 20 end just when doing normal, non-combat, maneuvers per turn.

 

Oh good, then I agree. My minimum would be pretty low, though: "Maximum Port Speed" or the like. Or, I could just wing it when the ship has to move really slow for whatever reason.

 

Yeah, I was thinking about working a standard speed in there somehow. Thanks for bringing that up.

[Vanguard]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Guys, the answer is already in Star Hero. Now, granted, it says "Bases" instead of star ships but there's no good reason why you can't use it for them as well.

 

What is says is this. For dynamic systems (IE: Shields*, Weapons, etc) the END cost is based on the SPD of the character firing/using it. So your 5 END using Blaster Cannon, used by a SPD 5 character, would use 25 end. But that same cannon used by a SPD 2 only uses 10.

 

For systems like Life Support, Artificial Gravity, etc . . assume the Vehicle has a flat SPD of 3.

 

Don't have a copy of Star Hero so I can't give you page # but I remember reading it there some where. (Honest, I bought Eidetic Memory).

 

*Shields I'd almost lump with the Life Support, etc. Making the ship pay for it on SPD 3. Wouldn't be really fair any other way.

[zornwil]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Because people (characters) can voluntarily lower their SPD, and because SPD only enters into it when critical for a vehicle, I would rule that the ongoing END cost is really the lowest SPD (1, though IIRC they've changed it so you can't go below 2 SPD as a character, unsure) times that, and either hand-wave for other times or assume that with the additional stress/strain of combat time the END (fuel) is exhausted more quickly. But that's just a suggestion.

 

Personally, I wouldn't charge for the "small stuff", just assume it'd be covered. Or assign it a SPD 1 on the whole, it just functions on its own time.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

Because people (characters) can voluntarily lower their SPD, and because SPD only enters into it when critical for a vehicle, I would rule that the ongoing END cost is really the lowest SPD (1, though IIRC they've changed it so you can't go below 2 SPD as a character, unsure) times that, and either hand-wave for other times or assume that with the additional stress/strain of combat time the END (fuel) is exhausted more quickly. But that's just a suggestion.

 

Personally, I wouldn't charge for the "small stuff", just assume it'd be covered. Or assign it a SPD 1 on the whole, it just functions on its own time.

 

It just says in FREd that you are asumed to be at SPD 2 at all times when not engaged in combat. (Unless your SPD is 1, I guess, but that's rare, of course).

 

So, I'd say a flat 3 SPD for static systems is GREAT. Wooo! Problem solved!

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

I generally base it on the SPD of the vehicle. I have yet to run into a problem because of the way I design vehicular Power Plants.

 

What I do is figure up the END cost of general systems (Life Support, Artificial Gravity, Sheilds, sensors etc) on a Per Turn basis, then I make the Power Plant capable of handling this continuously, so there is no need to keep track normally. Only when extra systems are in use such as ECM or Weaponry do you have to keep track of how much END is being used in a turn.

 

If the Recovery of the END Reserve is high enough, general systems will not drain END at all. When it comes to Power Plants, I consider the REC to be its power generation abilities (the power plant itself) and the Endurance its power storage ability (the batteries) In general, a vehicles REC should be 1.5 times greater than its general power usage.

 

If you do this, SPD is irrelevant. Simply figure out the "End per turn" and plan accordingly.

 

Example:

 

The Starburst is a medium sized freighter that's been converted for smuggling. Its got basic Life Support, Artificial gravity, an enhanced Force Field, some hefty ECM/ECCM systems, a Tractor beam and several medium grade blasters and a turret of Autofire laser cannons. Itis SPD 4.

 

Lets say the Life Support, the Gravity and the Force Field all together cost 9 End per phase, which comes out to 36 End per turn.

The ECM will be used extensively when its doing illegal smuggling, so we'll figure in the cost of that as well. Add another 10 end per phase for a total of 40 End per turn (!) That brings us to 76 End.

 

Thus, we'll need a "Power Plant" capable of handling all that on a regular basis, which means it needs a minimum output of REC 76. But you are going to want more than that. Multplied by 1.5, we get a REC of 114.

For "Batteries" I usually grade the storage capacity by a multipliers. Light is X2, Medium is X3, Heavy X4 and Military grade is X5. This is the multiplier to the REC and is the amount of END the batteries hold. Thus a Military grade Power Plant with a REC of 114 holds 570 Endurance. The Heavy and Military grades hold large amounts of endurance to power weapons, obviously. Weapons, most especially Autofire capable weapons, take a lot of END to operate. The suggested levels of END in STAR HERO are far, far to low for most military or privateer vessels to power weaponry.....

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

I generally base it on the SPD of the vehicle. I have yet to run into a problem because of the way I design vehicular Power Plants.

 

My quarrel with the "END use of static systems based on SPD" method is simply that I don't think two starships of the same size and crew complement should pay different costs for what is, essentially, the same Life Support system.

 

-- Each ship is the same size.

-- Each ship carries the same crew complement.

-- Each ship has the same Life Support system on board.

-- One ship has SPD 3, while the other has SPD 4.

 

When using "END use of static system based on SPD," the SPD 4 ship pays more for its Life Support than the SPD 3 ship -- even though each Life Support system is performing the same amount of work.

 

So for me, it's not an issue of how the rules work, but a realism issue. An air conditioner in a Ford Escort, for example, uses the same amount of energy when set to "High" as a Lamborghini Diablo's air conditioner uses on the same setting. In other words, certain systems are on all the time, and should not cost more END to use solely because of the SPD of the vehicle.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Spacecraft and END

 

My quarrel with the "END use of static systems based on SPD" method is simply that I don't think two starships of the same size and crew complement should pay different costs for what is, essentially, the same Life Support system.

 

-- Each ship is the same size.

-- Each ship carries the same crew complement.

-- Each ship has the same Life Support system on board.

-- One ship has SPD 3, while the other has SPD 4.

 

When using "END use of static system based on SPD," the SPD 4 ship pays more for its Life Support than the SPD 3 ship -- even though each Life Support system is performing the same amount of work.

 

So for me, it's not an issue of how the rules work, but a realism issue. An air conditioner in a Ford Escort, for example, uses the same amount of energy when set to "High" as a Lamborghini Diablo's air conditioner uses on the same setting. In other words, certain systems are on all the time, and should not cost more END to use solely because of the SPD of the vehicle.

I don't have a problem with this, as I think it simulates the limited power output of generators, batteries, etc. Out of combat, all ships act at Speed 2, so there is no discrepency. In combat, the large and complex power generation and routing requirements can reflect even better than the straight End costs that it is more difficult to operate shields and such while you are maneuvering madly, firing weapons, etc.

 

The other way you can look at this is that basically it is an increase in the cost of acting quickly. In order to be effective at a higher Speed, you are not only going to have to pay 10 CPs per extra level of Speed, but you are going to multiply your Rec and/or End by the new relative amount of Speed (e.g. if you go from Speed 2 to Speed 4, you are also going to need roughly twice the Rec). Increasing the frequency at which you can act is awfully cheap at 10 CPs IMO, and this does a little to balance things.

 

Keep in mind that the Speed of the vehicle is simply the maximum Speed at which it can operate without the pilot making mad Piloting rolls; normally the vehicle does act at the Speed of the pilot when that is less than or equal to its own Speed.

 

BTW, the way I often do systems such as Life Support that are not likely to take a great deal of energy and that you normally don't want to keep track of, is I give them a Limitation, "Only Works While End is Greater Than Zero (-0)" instead of Costs End (for systems that cost End to begin with, give them Reduced End Cost plus the above Limitation). This way your Life Support systems aren't likely to fail unless you are really pushing your ship to the utmost limits, it is damaged, etc.