ghost-angel Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 So, you're sitting down and building a spaceship or two. And for one design you've decided that the cockpit is encased in the middle, the front of it is basically a big view screen that displays sensor data from a big advanced Sensor Pod stuck to the front of the ship. In all other ways, it pretty much functions like a normal view - only instead of limited by where glass is, it's the limit of the sensor pods "view" of things. What do ya'll think is the easiest or most appropriate method: 1) Special Effects - it's just like a normal cockpit only, without glass 2) Clairsentience 3) Other Assume the ship already comes with a standard Sensor VPP as outline in Hero to get sense beyond normal sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Typist Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things Well, you could approach it from the angle of removing a "Hit Location" of "cockpit" from the ship Hit Location chart, if you use one. Essentially, the only thing that changes is the fact that the cockpit is safer, correct? That you are less likely to receive a devastating hit to this location. Maybe some sort of Hardened or Extra Def, or something...... because though it feels like it is a good chunk SFX, there is also a legitimate upside to doing it and SFX don't generally give you an advantage like that for free. Clairsentience feels like you'd be overbuilding it, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted September 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things Ah! lightbulb! this is nominally for a campaign using rules from Terran Empire, all of which have Limited Coverage(Hull Only) on the DEF. Consulting the Ultimate Vehicle (p12) doesn't really help me figure out if Hull Only excludes the cockpit canopy or not (time to hit up the GM). So, in the end figuring out what that Limitation on the Defenses are may answer the question (i.e., simply removing that Lim could solve the issue). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thia Halmades Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things I would definitely shoot for Clarisentience; you can also do this as a series of 'deployable drones' as 'mobile perception points' if you like, which is most assuredly Clairsentience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted October 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things I would definitely shoot for Clarisentience; you can also do this as a series of 'deployable drones' as 'mobile perception points' if you like' date=' which is most assuredly Clairsentience.[/quote'] The perception point is neither mobile nor deployable. It's the front of the ship, same position and arc of view at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thia Halmades Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things Oh, I was just giving an example of a more standard Clairsentience power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monster Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things For nonhuman senses, there's no extra build necessary - I would think it's already figured as equipment; the display is just in a different place than usually assumed. The only extra build you need to do is Clairsentience for the normal vision. As far as hit location...without chekcing the charts, you could simply reword "cockpit" as "sensor array" and call it good. Of course, hits on the sensor wouldn't have quite the same effect as actual cockpit hits... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dholcrist Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things I'd say that all the above I agree with, except with the statement that the removal of a forward "glass" (transparisteel, what have you) viewing with the replacement of an electronic simulacrum is nothing but positives. While I think it'd be mostly advantageous (and I'd certainly rather be in the center of the ship), the downside would be the possibility of flying blind increasing. If you somehow lose power, you lose all knowledge of where you are in space, whereas if you had a "traditional" cockpit, you'd at least be able to see where you were going. Also, there's the possibility of someone actually tampering with what you're seeing. Hacker perhaps hooks into your sensors and makes you think you're flying through Oz, when in fact you're hurtling into Luna? Sorry, dragged that out longer than intended, but basically what I'm saying is: perhaps a good build should represent both the advantages (a hit to the sensor array won't kill you like it would in a normal cockpit), and the disadvantages (put your faith in the electronics with no way to verify with your own eyes). I'd suggest how to do that, but I'm terrible at Builds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted October 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things Sorry' date=' dragged that out longer than intended, but basically what I'm saying is: perhaps a good build should represent both the advantages (a hit to the sensor array won't kill you like it would in a normal cockpit), and the disadvantages (put your faith in the electronics with no way to verify with your own eyes). I'd suggest how to do that, but I'm terrible at Builds.[/quote'] If the advantages and disadvantages about even themselves out it usually becomes a simple matter of SFX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publius Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things I totally understand you on this one. I'm doing a little shipwork myself, and I have to ask myself: why the heck is the bridge in the front/top of the ship? To make it easier to hit? I mean if all this stuff is coming though via screens anyway (a la Trek's larger ships, not runabouts or pods or shuttles) why the hell not bury that baby deep inside of the ship? Likewise with robots: if the "control part" -- whether that is a computer, an AI-programmed something-or-other, or a positronic whatsis -- can go into the chest where it can have greater protection why not do so? I think this is a designer flaw, i.e. that these things have been designed by humans. Our brains are the place they are for a lot of very good biological reasons, but when we design things we tend to put the control center where ours is -- up front and on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maur Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things Well, the Enterprise-D did have a battle bridge. They just rarely showed them using it except in the few rare occasions when the saucer section was split from the secondary hull. Most of that is Hollywood Cinematics. The Navy does bury the CIC inside the ships to better protect them, but some command-and-control stations remain topside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publius Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things But the Battle Bridge was only used when they separated and it was in the front of the rear section after separation (trust me, I have the plans). The NCC 1701 (no A, B, C, D, E, S, M whatever) did have an emergency bridge which was buried inside, but the emergency bridge only allowed a very crude control od the systems. I agree about the modern ships being set up like that (which is what I was getting to), I can understand plane/fighter functions being controlled topside (like the tower of an airport). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted October 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things After reading through TUV and looking at ship designs... it's a wash. Special Effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things Take a peek at "Transparency And Openings" on page 13, and "Windshield And Window Defenses" on page 146. In essence: you're right; if the electronic viewport offers no special Sense abilities, it's just a Special Effect of not applying Limited Coverage to the DEF (which would normally represent a less-tough physical viewport). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowcat1313 Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things whereas the US Navy uses one big CIC, the russians have used several smaller control centers and dispersed them throughout the ship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted October 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Re: Vehicles, Cockpits and Seeing Things Take a peek at "Transparency And Openings" on page 13, and "Windshield And Window Defenses" on page 146. In essence: you're right; if the electronic viewport offers no special Sense abilities, it's just a Special Effect of not applying Limited Coverage to the DEF (which would normally represent a less-tough physical viewport). Those are the pages that lead me to my conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.