unclevlad

12 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

But my example is about buying 502 pts of Multiform …in which case the minimum cost is more than satisified.  Also, as noted in my edit, above, Multiform's cost in RAW explicity states it's 1 CP per 5 pts (which mathematically entails Total Cost divided by 5 to compute the CP cost).

 

The RULE for Multiform is 1 CP per 5 points.  The rule IS NOT divide the cost by 5.  The statements ARE NOT equivalent BECAUSE of the rounding rule.  The statement in the rule says that the rounding DOES NOT APPLY because there is no division involved by the statement of the rule.

No, there's no HD problem.  You're asking to buy a "fractional die" if this was, say, Blast.  No.  1 CP gets you 5 character points...that doesn't reverse.  The rounding rules don't apply because there is no rounding to be done.  Multiplication and division happen with Advantages and Limitations, not with basic purchase cost.  You can't buy "3 build points" worth of Duplication.  

The rule is there.  6E1, p. 40.  Buying less than the full amount.

This is an attack, move, attack sequence.  So...

--full phase

--requires Rapid Attack

--Penalties:  a combination of Strafe and Multiple Attack.  Strafe comes kinda close, as it's the most involved move/attack combination.  Strafe gives -v/6, -2.  Multiple attacks on same target gives -2 OCV for the 2nd attack...both attacks are still punches.  For v, let's call it the maximum possible...perfect roll damage roll, lowest possible roll on the subtraction part (so, 1 or 2 usually).  So for a 10d6 regular against a normal opponent not flying, that's 18...20 Body, snake eyes on the 2d6 KB reducer.  v=18 means -3. OCV  So this maneuver becomes -5 OCV, -2 DCV.  Oh, and this isn't a rounding situation.  If the max KB distance is 7, the OCV penalty is -2, not -1.

--The movement power costs the END it would cost for the maximum distance possible...REGARDLESS of the actual distance covered.  That's in addition to the attack END.

The move in the middle is SFX.  There's no damage bonus anywhere.

Yah, figured someone had done this:

Looks like they're Hero Designer files, but if you're willing to spring for it, HD is a big help in tracking costs.  There may be PDF versions too.  Browse the whole Downloads area.  Lots of useful stuff.

It's complicated if you want to make it complicated.   So my suggestion is to start easy.  Starting in a "heroes in training" motif can help keep expectations down.  Keep the power straightforward.  Set some guidelines, like maximum attack and defense levels.  If you're going with the high school equivalence...the nice thing is you can darn near skip skills.  Everyone mostly has just Everyman skills.  You can actually give some extra points only for skills as you go along.

Yah, I mentioned it in large part just to get OP to thinking about it.  Once some of these questions are addressed, it may help frame the naming convention question.  Mission will also frame the kinds of capabilities desired.

Or, of course, we've only made OP's head explode.

Oh.

OK, my bad there for sure.  I'm not sure that the supers would follow the same pattern, tho.  But if it does, I think that argues for English as a common language if this group works together.  That's a very diverse set of languages, and *some* common language is gonna be needed.  

And there's still a big question, at least in my mind, as to what the mission of such a group would be.

Makes sense.  The NATO phonetics would at least be a Euro-bias rather than strictly US bias.  Heck, you could do function-related code/keynames...but not all in English.  Altho that gets awkward if the hero doesn't speak the language of the code name.

Some of this could also depend on the purpose of this team, within a UN context.  The UN...at least here...doesn't support a direct-action combat force, so...what is it this team is expected to do?    And, who's supplying the majority of the forces?  UN peacekeepers tend to be US and Europe.  Relations between the West and Russia/China are not particularly open in our world...what are they there?  And are they willing to kick in their heroes?  It's a reasonable assertion that most smaller countries can't afford to...even if they're not embroiled in messes of their own.

Those are the official and working languages of the Security Council and General Assembly.  To me that means documents issued by these bodies will be available in these languages, and that translations into these languages will be available during debates.  What languages are used for UN peacekeeping forces, or other UN-sponsored multinational efforts?  At least at the command levels.  It's not clear all troops of a peacekeeping force would have to speak English.

Yeah, code names wouldn't have to be translated, but some languages are rather harder to read and/or pronounce than others.  Transliteration is an issue when dealing with non-Latin alphabets.  Saying it's English-only, or using the NATO phonetics, isn't gonna please everyone but it's enormously simpler and more practical.  The NATO phonetics put the emphasis on being a part of UNERF...good name there, the acronym being somewhat humorous is gonna be missed by bureaucrats anyway.  (Nixon era classic...the Committee for the Re-election of the President, AKA CREEP.  Oops.)  Functional names like Recon, Tank, and the like do OK with that.  The more personal the code names are, tho, the more the person in the job is emphasized.  That's not particularly desirable here.

One point on languages...English is the accepted language of business.  It's the closest there is to a lingua franca, and the one you can most reasonably expect people to speak at a basic level.  If code names could be in Mongolianor Swahili, how many people won't understand it?  And what kind of confusion does that entail?  From a tactical perspective, that's not a good idea.

No, I'd say they'd all be in English. 

Another option is the NATO Phonetic alphabet.  From Wikipedia:

The 26 code words in the NATO phonetic alphabet are assigned to the 26 letters of the English alphabet in alphabetical order as follows: 

Alfa, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, Hotel, India, Juliett, Kilo, Lima, Mike, November, Oscar, Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra, Tango, Uniform, Victor, Whiskey, X-ray, Yankee, Zulu.

Assign a general *style* to each.  Bravo and Kilo are strongmen.  Echo and X-ray are detection specialists.  And so on.  That leaves flexibility in terms of filling the slots, while maintaining a diverse set of powers.  Who do we need for this?  Alfa, Hotel, Romeo, and Yankee power sets.  Oh, Hotel and Yankee hate each other?  OK, we can use Oscar instead of Hotel.

Also note that this is a NATO construct, so it's already a multi-national, polyglot convention.  

Downloaded, copied JAR file over to its network home, kicked it off.  It loaded up the clairvoyant, but with this:

WARNING: An illegal reflective access operation has occurred
WARNING: Illegal reflective access by org.jruby.ext.posix.util.FieldAccess (file:/H:/HD6.jar) to field java.io.FileDescriptor.handle
WARNING: Please consider reporting this to the maintainers of org.jruby.ext.posix.util.FieldAccess
WARNING: Use --illegal-access=warn to enable warnings of further illegal reflective access operations
WARNING: All illegal access operations will be denied in a future release

Doesn't seem to have caused a problem, as it loaded.  H: is a mapped drive (Windows 10) to my NAS, because browsing networks with Java can be *painfully* slow on a WIndows network.

And it's reporting x2 Range is 400m, which means yeah, everything's adders and not counting, which was how I read the RAW.  

That seemed likely.  Thanks!  

HD Build 20180726

I'm playing around with Clairsentience.  

#1:  Sight group, 360 degree arc, x2 range.  25 base points, yes.  So it reports 500m range.  

#2:  Add 0 End.  Range reported:  740m.  Hmm.

#3:  Add MegaScale, 1m = 1 km.  

Clairsentience (Sight Group), x2 Range (1,240m), Increased Arc Of Perception (360 Degrees), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), MegaScale (1m = 1 km; +1) (75 Active Points)

Clairsentience appears to allow both the x2 Range and MegaScale to be in effect at the same time, so I think that's legal, but...from Range, 6E1 129:

Quote

Standard Range is commonly used for Attack Powers and the like. A Power with Standard Range has a maximum Range equal to 10 meters times the Character Points spent on the base Power (in other words, don’t count Adders or Advantages). A Blast 10d6 (base cost of 50 Character Points, final cost of 50 Active Points) has a Range of 500m; a Blast 10d6, Armor Piercing (base cost of 50 Character Points, final cost of 62 Active Points) also has a Range of 500m.

Well, here, it's allowing the Reduced End to increase the range.  And what feels REALLY weird is that MegaScale is being allowed to increase the range.  

The 360 perception is shown as an 'adder'...but the summary table on 6E1 179 suggests it's not supposed to be, and that probably it's just an issue with the nomenclature in HD.  Senses are a mess from a code perspective.  But the others...that's odd.  

I noticed this because I was having a hard time trying to determine what does, and what does not, contribute to the Base Points to derive the basic range, before any tweaks.  

If I pick up +6 Telescopic with Normal Sight, and Clairsentience which includes Normal Sight...do I get the +6 Telescopic with the Clairsentience?

If so, then if I also include +4 Telescopic as part of the Clairsentience package, does that now mean I'm +10 Telescopic when using the Clairsentience?

The vehicle table has more issues than that, but yeah, you don't have drag to speak of, and you don't have gravity issues.

You either have FTL, or peta-scale teleport (jump gates).  You don't have a space game without one or the other.  

If you want costing, yeah, you may want to go in reverse.  The vehicle size rules are somewhat meaningless because you can piggyback 100% cargo space, or build a mildly larger hull to increase cargo space.  It's all about mass, and that's all about STR.  100 cubic meters of cargo space can represent 1.5 kilotons of cargo *real* fast...high density ship parts.  And 100 meters is nothing, on the ship size table.

So the approach looks to be:

a)  decide the ship's basic size, based on crew and mission.  For *interior* cargo storage alone...figure anything from 5 to 25% of the hull volume might be cargo space.  How many weapons?  How much passenger space...and are we talking berths or suites.  So you can assign anything in that range sanely enough.  

b)  Figure out how much more STR you want to sink in.  Figure each cubic meter of cargo space is 10 tons, for an average.  It can be more, cuz that's only density 10 stuff.  Tungsten, osmium, and iridium are all 18+, IIRC.  Figure the density 10 is a reasonable design rule.  

c)  That tells you how much STR you need to buy.  You do need big engines to move lots of mass.

A common approach to FTL is that gravity is the enemy.  Going FTL requires space to be sufficiently flat...which means, the more mass you're carrying, the further away from the star you have to get.  It's not a matter of slower or faster based on load, it's yes/no.  The slower/faster comes in when dealing with in-system movement, if that's at sublight speeds. '

But as was pointed out too...velocity has to to with drag.  Higher mass would lower acceleration, but in space, it doesn't change the max speed.  Fundamentally, the basis for the 6E2 vehicle table...which is seriously flawed IMO to begin with...relies on assumptions that just don't hold.  So abstract the concepts you need, which pretty much is baseline BODY, STR, and OCV+.  

Well, some of this is to construct an alternative to someone who wants NCM, to buy 5" with +1 MegaScale, while at the same time, allowing someone to go San Fran to LA in an hour without spending a crazy amount.  One thing to also note:  if you're gonna be doing this for that hour, you may hit the LTE rules.  So you're gonna need at least 1/2 END, and if you break 40 Active, probably 0 END.  Note that this is a side issue with the Adder 'double NCM' format.  It increases the base cost *before* applying any advantage.  This makes even 1/2 END notably more expensive.  With a 4 SPD, 20" of running, x16 net NCM is 35 active.  1/2 END adds 9 more.  Base running cuts 12 off the cost, so 32 points.  That gets you...about 240 mph.    If it's Flight, we're talking 44 points for "I can't beat the slowest private plane at the local airport."

The adder is also very expensive if all you want is quicker NCM...because in part, it's not just about NCM.  It has a significant combat application.  Say you want 15" of running and x4 NCM.  You can't break the highway speed limit, at SPD 4 or 5.  But going from x2 to x4 is slightly worse than a +1/2 Advantage.

But, it is true that flight and especially running are fairly cheap.  How about
+1/4 Adv:  x5

+1/2 Adv:  x15

+3/4 Adv:  x50

20" of movement, speed 4, x50 NCM is just under the speed of sound.  Same cost as 20", x16, same need for reduced END...but it'll cost less here.  It's 5 points, not 9.  So if this is running, it's 28 points.  If it's flight, it's 40.  

Granted, if you tack on limitations it gets cheaper.  I'll definitely agree the 3/4 Adv level (at least) justifies a yellow Caution.   I'm hoping this strikes a reasonable balance, tho.

Wow.  

Didn't realize my version was so old.  2013.  And might've been purchased under a different account.

Went ahead and bought the latest.  DEFINITELY helps the font sizes.  Readable now, on my usual living room arrangement...monitors about 3' away from the recliner.  But I can put a game on the TV while I goof off online so it's all good.

This is the line I'm using:

javaw -Xmx1024m -cp .\HD6.jar com.hero.HeroDesigner 14

This allocates a full gigabyte of memory for HD to use...probably overkill.  Can be cut back if desired.  -Xmx512m would allocate only half a gig.  Still more than the default, IIRC.  And 14 point size.

Anyway, just want to say thanks for updating things.  Looks MUCH crisper than my 2013 version.

What Oracle is saying is that Java 8 is now very much out of date.  They're on Java 10.  They don't want to continue to maintain Java 8 forever.  So, after 2020, there will be no bug fixes or security patches.  But Java itself will still run, as long as the application you're trying to run isn't written for a later version.

Essentially, Microsoft said the same thing a while back.  Windows 7 reached end of life.  No support of any kind...no new drivers, no bug fixes, no security patches.  But if you have an old Win 7 system, it will run...as long as you only try to run programs written for Win 7 and earlier.  There's serious limitations on what you can do with such a box these days...not sure any of the major browsers would still run, even their Win 7 versions.  (There can be end of life checks for these, too.)  BUT...lots of older Windows and DOS games and apps run MUCH better under Win 7 than Win 10.

What Oracle suggests is...update to Java 10.  The language has seen significant new features incorporated since 8, which was being supplanted when I retired 6 years ago.

I've been playing with implementing Ron's Champions Now! rules in Java, when I have the mental energy and alertness (sleep problems these days).  Started on powers.  The issues:

--identify all powers, implement minimum purchase amounts.

--identify all advantages and limitations

--develop a structure for powers to have adders and options

--combine everything properly...most particularly for Endurance, since Ron is using the nasty 3rd Ed endurance costs.  And, a power can have one of three different basic END cost structures, AND not every advantage actually increases the END cost.

--develop the GUIs, even in a very coarse form, to support data entry.  

I believe I have all the "simple powers" as I call it, done and updating properly real-time...so if you add another floating teleport location, the active cost, real cost, and END are all properly updated. .  Compound powers will be like in Hero Designer...a container for multiple simple powers.  I don't have Life Support or Enhanced Senses because these are structurally about the same as compound powers...a compilation of smaller sub-powers.  Then it'll be time for the frameworks, altho I don't believe those will be all that bad.  No, I'm NOT!!! gonna cross-check that a power's legal for inclusion in an EC.  I'm doing this for my amusement at this point.  That's too much work!

And overall...this has been not too bad because Champs Now is *simple* compared to 6th Ed.  Still quite a bit of work to do, and even more to clean up so, for example, power names display nicely.

Last, of course...one thing I'm not gonna try is the cross-checking....what advantages are legal, which aren't, for a given power?  What powers are legal in an EC?  Doesn't interest me but it'd have to be done for a commercial product.

No...I can't see trying to incorporate 4th Ed.  As noted, more trouble than it's worth.

It does matter.  There is no general mechanic.  A tugboat might have 5% cargo space.  A supertanker is probably 85%.

What's the purpose of the ship?  Freight hauler, smuggler, courier/yacht (all passenger space, little dedicated cargo space)?

What's the purpose here?  Why do you need game stats?  Also, what kind of ship?  There's everything from a bulk freighter as mentioned above, to something like the Millenium Falcon which was never really a freighter in the first place.  (And the cargo mass on that layout is actually probably just a fraction of the overall ship mass, at least as they portrayed it.)

If you want something closer to real...

http://yrc.com/trailer-dimensions/

A semi trailer is generally bigger than a school bus...altho they're pretty comparable.  School bus is listed as 250 cubic meters...it's not even close.  The 28' High Cube trailer has an internal volume of a touch over 2000 cubic feet...that's less than *60* cubic meters.  And I believe this kind of trailer's rated for more than 12.5 tons.  On the flip side...a 747 can't come *close* to lifting 3.2 kilotons;  the max takeoff weight is given as about 400 tons.  

Work out the cargo size first.  That's largely separate from the hull size, in large spacecraft because aerodynamics are meaningless.  (I'm assuming interplanetary/interstellar ships, not orbit-to-surface shuttles.)  Then figure they're designed to run 100% full, albeit not necessarily with exceptionally heavy stuff.   So...average density of 5 or so.  That's most rocks;  iron is 8, copper and silver 9.  But if it can handle 10,000 cubic meters...and that's only 100 meters by 10 by 10...density 5 says it's 50,000 tons.  

BTW, it's plausible there's no such thing as running light under most circumstances.  There's no economic reason to do so.

An easy way to shrink NYC would be to say there was another port of entry set up in the mid 19th century.  We all know about Ellis Island of course, but there was a big immigration center on Manhattan before they built it.   Perhaps Portsmouth, NH.  That'll grow that region.

Yes, this has the same restrictions as MegaScale for rules like MB/MT.

OK, that suggests:

a)  leave the adders as is, for someone wanting high-speed move-by and move-through.  

b)  probably drop the +1/4 level as overly duplicative, but it can be kept too.  It's cheaper in many cases, it gives a fairly nice noncombat velo, and lots of chars don't do MB/MT

c)  the +1/2 and +3/4 are extensions on MegaScale, if you will.  Can't be used with MB/MT.