TE Starship Design Theory

[Nolgroth]

Okay, this is a tangent to another thread that mentioned how "tough" TE ships are. My question here is why would there be an Ablative Force Field and a non-Ablative force field? I've always considered Force Fields one of those things that get whittled down after taking shots, so Ablative seems like the more appropriate type of force field. Thoughts?

 

And another question, why does the Alternate Ablative rule take 5 AP, when it would make more sense to just knock off some DEF instead, without the consideration of points? Is it because the DEF might be purchased with an Advantage (like Hardened) which would justify knocking less DEF off?

[ghost-angel]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

RE why 5AP for Force Fields:

 

sometimes force fields are made with Armor and not Force Field, thus the value of DEF at 5AP is different.

Advantages can affect the issue - saying 5AP allows you to figure out how much 1DEF costs with Advantages, and then add that up until you reach 5AP. Otherwise you'd have to provide a chart.

 

As for why one is Ablative and one not - besides design whim. . .

The Ablative outer force field is nominally for combat - allowing a ship to turn it off for normal travel. Which leads to the non-ablative inner force field which is to protect the ship against miscellaneous space debris. The out ablative hull plating is simply armored hull plating welding over the basic hull. The basic hull is the non-ablative hull plating, or what's keeping the inside of the ship on the inside.

 

Thus, four layers. Combat Force Field, Normal Force Field, Defensive Armor Plating, The Hull

 

...and of course ablative Force Fields allow for the line "Shields down to 20% Captain!! We can't take another hit!"

[Nolgroth]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

RE why 5AP for Force Fields:

 

sometimes force fields are made with Armor and not Force Field, thus the value of DEF at 5AP is different.

Advantages can affect the issue - saying 5AP allows you to figure out how much 1DEF costs with Advantages, and then add that up until you reach 5AP. Otherwise you'd have to provide a chart.

Yeah, but adds another level of complexity. Trying to figure out how much DEF is lost is just another cumbersome math problem (for me anyway). See my post here for an alternate idea regarding Ablative. I've probably missed something, but it seems more natural to me, especially with the massive amount of shielding bought in Terran Empire.

 

.....Thus, four layers. Combat Force Field, Normal Force Field, Defensive Armor Plating, The Hull

That's a lot of defense too. The cannon that you fired at the end of last week's game was one of the most powerful in the TE character pack and it managed to blast through the Ablative Force Field, Force Field and barely scratch the Ablative armor underneath. Great for the player characters, but not so much when the NPCs have it. Repeated blasts may wear down the Ablative stuff, but it takes a lot of time to do so.

 

And it doesn't make sense for other ships NOT to have it.

 

And it negates the cool scenes from Star Trek where the Captain gives the order to disable the enemies weapons, engines, whatnot, and a few shots later the ship in question is disabled.

 

...and of course ablative Force Fields allow for the line "Shields down to 20% Captain!! We can't take another hit!"

Agreed and that's why I like it, I'm just not sure that you need NON-Ablative Force Fields. That's the only one I'd get rid of, given the choice.

 

And Design Quibble #3: Flight speeds. I've seen go-carts that are faster than the fighters in TE. I'm trying to figure a reason that everything goes so slow. I know I've mentioned this before, but it irks me that much.

 

And here I take a break from the complaints to give a compliment. The break down in design Categories (Power, Propulsion, Tactical, etc) makes it easy to locate what you are looking for. For the sheer amount of information on the character sheets, they don't seem cluttered to me.

 

Back to Complaints again. #4. Ship Speed. Of course, we've discussed and changed this for our own campaign, but why in space would a fighter have one measly speed point over a dreadnought!?! If there is a rational explanation, I'd love to hear it.

 

Disclaimer: Work has me in a downright froth. I realize I'm whining about stuff that I can perfectly well fix in the Gemini campaign, but it's therapeutic.

[Nolgroth]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

I suppose I should describe what I want in terms of ship construction.

1. Rules that actually allow me to quickly assemble a "ship" (character) from a bunch of "parts." (equipment write ups). said rules would have a costing system so that if I tried to reverse engineer an existing ship, it would come out to be the same cost. (I have lots of ideas there.)
   
2. Rules that are both consistent internally and make sense. Rules designed to metagame are annoying. Perfect example is the way Speed and Movement work in TE. I realize that it is there to move combat along quickly by not having disparate Speed scores and to keep movement rates relatively close to make it easier to track. It still sucks. (On the road to being fixed in Gemini Ascendant anyway.)
   
3. Ship combat rules that take into account that there is more than just a pilot (we've fixed these sort of). I also want ship combat to be fun, flexible, fast and furious. Wearing down 50 Ablative DEF to get to the meat inside just sucks. At least with the existing rules. I suppose the activation roll thing works to speed things up, but seems so unnatural to me.
   
4. Probably something I've forgotten.

In many ways, the Gemini Ascendant group has "fixed" many of my problems. I suppose what I am looking for is some sort of defense that exposes me to a new idea. Just because it is in the book doesn't make it right, but maybe I'm missing a huge point.

 

And besides, it wouldn't be the first time I've twisted the HERO rules like a Stretch Armstrong doll.

[tancred]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

Nolgroth, for the ship construction system you may want to take a look at Traveller Hero.

The simple construction system there is converted from Traveller's, which meets most of your criteria. It includes (in Hero terms) all the various components that go into a starship.

 

We didn't do anything about changing vehicle combat, but the construction system may help you.

[Zane_Marlowe]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

Ultimate Vehicle has a lot of interesting stuff in this line. You might check it out.

[Nolgroth]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

Nolgroth, for the ship construction system you may want to take a look at Traveller Hero.

The simple construction system there is converted from Traveller's, which meets most of your criteria. It includes (in Hero terms) all the various components that go into a starship.

It is on my list, I assure you.

[Nolgroth]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

Ultimate Vehicle has a lot of interesting stuff in this line. You might check it out.

I have it actually and it falls prey to the HERO "sin." It tries to be generic enough for everybody and thus is not specific enough to be a measured benchmark. This is NOT a bad thing (despite my use of the word sin). It is just the way HERO publishes books.

 

The single greatest resource I have found to date is the TE-STK Hero Designer character pack. It has a huge amount of pre-fabbed sub-systems that you can plug-in to the potential ship. Absolutely marvelous stuff.

 

Now if HERO had just taken all those pre-fabs and placed them into a handy "design your own ship by following these steps" set of rules, they would have had something golden. I'm sure that there would have been some complaints that it was too specific, but if those rules were part of Spacers Toolkit then they would have been meant for Terran Empire. Suddenly the Terran Empire would be more complete.

 

So that is my major complaint and even though I was sounding like a whiny (word that I can't type here) last night, I actually do have some solutions in the works.

 

Oh, and my day from H-E-double hockey sticks yesterday is over. I've had a whole five hours to sleep and now I'm starting to feel a little better. I'll try to post more constructively but even I get a little temperamental at times.

[Nolgroth]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

Oh, and thanks for the replies and suggestions. It has helped me figure out why there was a previously undefined ache regarding the Terran Empire ships. I appreciate all the help.

[ghost-angel]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

I have, somewhere, a system based on the Size Category and Weight of things for building Ships.

 

It was from an idea for converting some very ancient game whose name I can't recall.

[Nolgroth]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

I have, somewhere, a system based on the Size Category and Weight of things for building Ships.

 

It was from an idea for converting some very ancient game whose name I can't recall.

That would be interesting to see. The Star Frontiers ship construction is something along the lines I'm working on, though I've abstracted costs a little.

 

As soon as I get done with the draft of what I'm working on, I want you and Starwolf to give it the once or twice over. Look for inconsistencies or stupidity. That sort of thing.

 

My goal is to make Terran Empire compatible ships, with some adjustments for taste. Primarily I will be writing in the expanded comparative Speed chart that I posted in the modified combat rules I created (which reminds me to brush up for tonight), and making some adjustments to Movement rates.

 

Speaking of which, I have been ruminating on that whole concept and I tending towards keeping the movement "as-is" in regards to combat movement and making the NCM multiplier the "full thrust" option. I need to take a serious look at how that would work.

 

I'm gearing myself into that mode as we speak. It is relatively easy for me to switch between "Game Design" mode and "Game Master" mode. See ya tonight.

[ghost-angel]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

I would definitely keep the Inches Of Movement the same (on the seemingly low end) and use NCM for full thrust. Especially if Speed is going up (which inherently makes things faster unless you switch to Segmented Movement).

 

Otherwise you have the issue of space combat become a little too spread out. While it looks cool on paper to have fast ships - it's playability that is the end desire in an RPG.

[Nolgroth]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

I would definitely keep the Inches Of Movement the same (on the seemingly low end) and use NCM for full thrust. Especially if Speed is going up (which inherently makes things faster unless you switch to Segmented Movement).

 

Otherwise you have the issue of space combat become a little too spread out. While it looks cool on paper to have fast ships - it's playability that is the end desire in an RPG.

Exactly. The Combat vs NCM is the best compromise I can think of. Which means back to the drawing board for the new ship.

 

Edit: Or maybe not. The ship was designed to work differently that a "typical" ship. Its NCM is its FTL.

[Starwolf]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

The ship was designed to work differently that a "typical" ship. Its NCM is its FTL.

 

 

Ulp! ok so the NCM is supposed to be x1 instead of the default x2 and if we need a movement greater then the default STL combat inches we go to FTL? If this is the way you intended it I need to tweak our ORPG Node...

[ghost-angel]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

I assumed it would still be x2.

 

It can move at three levels:

Trying to dodge incoming fire (Combat Speed)

Not trying to dodge incoming fire (NCM)

FTL

[Nolgroth]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

I assumed it would still be x2.

 

It can move at three levels:

Trying to dodge incoming fire (Combat Speed)

Not trying to dodge incoming fire (NCM)

FTL

Precisely. Essentially 10g Acceleration Combat, 20g Acceleration Non-Combat, FTL. Even though I am sticking to an Space Opera setting, I just can't make myself put a maximum speed, just a maximum acceleration. I do need to look at Inertial Dampening though and make sure it is up to the task. Hate to see y'all squished like bugs.

[Starwolf]

Re: TE Starship Design Theory

 

Thats what I assumed from the writeup... and thats the way I set up the node... Just got confunded for a moment