It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
Fiction > Starfire
Draft Hull Table
crucis:
Thank you, Mav, for another fine posting with plenty of good questions...
--- Quote from: "mavikfelna" ---As far as the hull table sizes/MP ratios, I think it's fine. Looks like you fixed one of the real problems with the 3rdR table.
--- End quote ---
I think that it fixes problems that were carried over into 4e as well (and that's not a knock on 4e).
--- Quote ---What about cost per HS? I really think the increasing cost per HS is a disinclination to building larger ships, at least as much as the MP ratios caused some classes to be much less useful/desirable.
--- End quote ---
I can't tell you the actual cost per HS, as I don't remember what it is... However, it is my intention to go with truly flat per-HS costs for all of the various types of hulls (i.e. warships, FT's, BS's, etc.). Oh, each of those major types (i.e. warships, FT's, etc.) will have a different costs, but within a given major type, such as warships, the per-HS cost will be a single value for all of the sub-types (i.e. DD, CA, BB, etc.). I agree that the increasing per-HS cost is a disinclination against building larger ships.
--- Quote ---What are the MP limits and turnmodes? How will that affect other engine types, if they are included. Improving engine types (ala Ultra)?
--- End quote ---
The I drive speeds similar to 3rdR, except that above BB, there are some minor changes... All "BB" group hulls (i.e. BB, DN, SD) will have the same I Drive speed, and all "MT" group hulls (i.e. MT, MH, SMT) will have the same I drive speed.
I didn't include this specific info for a couple of reasons. One, I wanted the initial focus to be on the hull SIZES, not the engines. And Two, there is some new engine tech that I'm not ... quite ... ready to discuss. I will give you (well, everyone reading this) a thumbnail of it though...
First of all (not counting the Ic drive), there are 3 drive types projected as initial TL drive technologies... the tried and true I Drive, the J Drive (using the 4e model, speeds, TM's, etc.; a little faster tactically, with a 1/3 cruising speed, slightly higher TM's, 120* blindspot, ability to transit WPs), and a new military drive that's a bit slower (tactically) than the I drive, but with lower TM's and a 2/3 cruising speed ratio, and a tiny blindspot. The I and J drives use the same I/MP power ratings, and the "new" drive uses a "better" I/MP power rating. This new drive, which I colloquially call the "P Drive", may be a little slower than the I drive, but it's better in every other way (TM, Blind spot, cruising speed, I/MP's). It is designed to be a serious alternative to the I and J drives.
Regarding "improving engine types", it will NOT be done along the 4e model with strings of bland incremental generations. That is not to say that there won't be "improved" versions of earlier engines... just that it's my intention that they have considerably more flavor than a mere "+1 max speed, +1 TM". But at this point, I cannot talk about this (largely because it's still a work in progress).
--- Quote ---How about fast hulls (carrier hulls in 3rdR)? Freighters?
--- End quote ---
Carrier hulls won't exist as a separate hull type in the 3e manner of speaking. What they'll be is a major hull modification that allows for hanger bays to be mounted cheaply, with certain limitations. (And without the carrier hull mod, standard warships will pay heavily to mount hanger bays, since their hulls haven't been designed both externally and internally to support fighter operations.)
Carrier hulls will not be made faster due to this modification, nor will it improve their TM. However, you will be able to have speed 6 CVA's (for example) due to some sort of improved version of the I drive that will become available around the same time that you'd be wanting CVA's.
There's nothing new or special about freighters.
--- Quote ---Are you dropping Express Boats (EX hulls)? So long as minimum size is 3HS I don't see a problem dropping them. It's just nice having a cheap courier hull.
--- End quote ---
EX actually stands for "Explorer". However, I am dropping the EX.
However, it is possible that I have a "replacement" for the "cheap courier" role. (another work in progress I cannot discuss)
--- Quote ---Are you planning on dropping the 4HS construction bonus for ships finishing construction? Please! That's the other disincentive for large hulls in 3rdR and Ultra.
--- End quote ---
Gone, gonzo, see ya. No more 4 HS construction bonus.
Whenever I read thru the SF List archive, and this topic came up, there was almost never a decent reason given for its existance. I think that I did read somewhere that there was some underlying deep economic reason for it... but I'm sorry, that's not good enough for me. ;) there are certain aspects to the basic R&D process (and I mean very basic!!!) that are actually pretty good. I'm not talking about the tech trees and breakthru's etc. I'm talking about the basic process of buying RP's and rolling for success against the running total of bought RP's. It's a solid and really not particularly complex process that IMHO is an improvement over the 3e R&D process. And note that this basic bought RP process certainly does NOT require the use of the more complex aspects of 4e's R&D rules to be functional. Not in the least.
--- Quote ---Oh, and hull progression tech is the d~m hull sizes in Ultra in think. So as you improve in EL you can make larger hulls in the same class (IE, DD is 30, DDb is 35, DDe is 40 etc...) so that you are pushing larger hulls without increased cost per HS. If you go to a set cost per HS or even a very shallow cost increase per HS by class this isn't needed or is handled by improved engine tech. At least I think that's what Stephen is saying.
--Mav
--- End quote ---
Oh.... you mean generational hull technology? Ahhh.... Yes, I'm very familiar with generational hull tech. I'm not sure if that's what Stephen means or not (and would appreciate his input either way)... I actually SERIOUSLY considered (though have for now, rejected) using the concept of generational hull sizes as the means by which new generations of engine tech "improved". That is, a 2nd gen I drive would have allowed a hull to move a higher number of HS for the same number of engines. This would actually represent an engine improvement, since the engines would be more efficient on a HS moved per HS of engines basis. (I didn't particularly like how generational hulls were implemented in 4e with the penalties on better generations. Blah!)
However, I've decided against going this route, at least for now. (Also, I all my work on this concept was done before I came up with my new mathematically generated hull table. I'm not sure exactly how I could merge a generational "hull" concept into this new hull table concept ... at least yet... and I have no particular reason to work in that direction, for the time being.)
Fred Burton
Lead Designer for Cosmic Starfire
mavikfelna:
--- Quote from: "crucis" ---Thank you, Mav, for another fine posting with plenty of good questions...
--- Quote from: "mavikfelna" ---As far as the hull table sizes/MP ratios, I think it's fine. Looks like you fixed one of the real problems with the 3rdR table.
--- End quote ---
I think that it fixes problems that were carried over into 4e as well (and that's not a knock on 4e).
--- End quote ---
Agreed.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---What about cost per HS? I really think the increasing cost per HS is a disinclination to building larger ships, at least as much as the MP ratios caused some classes to be much less useful/desirable.
--- End quote ---
I can't tell you the actual cost per HS, as I don't remember what it is... However, it is my intention to go with truly flat per-HS costs for all of the various types of hulls (i.e. warships, FT's, BS's, etc.). Oh, each of those major types (i.e. warships, FT's, etc.) will have a different costs, but within a given major type, such as warships, the per-HS cost will be a single value for all of the sub-types (i.e. DD, CA, BB, etc.). I agree that the increasing per-HS cost is a disinclination against building larger ships
--- Quote ---What are the MP limits and turnmodes? How will that affect other engine types, if they are included. Improving engine types (ala Ultra)?
--- End quote ---
The I drive speeds similar to 3rdR, except that above BB, there are some minor changes... All "BB" group hulls (i.e. BB, DN, SD) will have the same I Drive speed, and all "MT" group hulls (i.e. MT, MH, SMT) will have the same I drive speed.
I didn't include this specific info for a couple of reasons. One, I wanted the initial focus to be on the hull SIZES, not the engines. And Two, there is some new engine tech that I'm not ... quite ... ready to discuss. I will give you (well, everyone reading this) a thumbnail of it though...
--- End quote ---
Excellent. I think the smoothed table combined with set per-HS costing by type is the best way to make it work properly. It gives a good incentive to build bigger while still making smaller viable with there advantaged speed/TM.
--- Quote ---First of all (not counting the Ic drive), there are 3 drive types projected as initial TL drive technologies... the tried and true I Drive, the J Drive (using the 4e model, speeds, TM's, etc.; a little faster tactically, with a 1/3 cruising speed, slightly higher TM's, 120* blindspot, ability to transit WPs), and a new military drive that's a bit slower (tactically) than the I drive, but with lower TM's and a 2/3 cruising speed ratio, and a tiny blindspot. The I and J drives use the same I/MP power ratings, and the "new" drive uses a "better" I/MP power rating. This new drive, which I colloquially call the "P Drive", may be a little slower than the I drive, but it's better in every other way (TM, Blind spot, cruising speed, I/MP's). It is designed to be a serious alternative to the I and J drives.
Regarding "improving engine types", it will NOT be done along the 4e model with strings of bland incremental generations. That is not to say that there won't be "improved" versions of earlier engines... just that it's my intention that they have considerably more flavor than a mere "+1 max speed, +1 TM". But at this point, I cannot talk about this (largely because it's still a work in progress).
--- End quote ---
Very interesting idea for a different engine. I look forward to trying it out. And I don't mind the 4e engine version but something a bit different wouldn't be unwelcome. Again, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---How about fast hulls (carrier hulls in 3rdR)? Freighters?
--- End quote ---
Carrier hulls won't exist as a separate hull type in the 3e manner of speaking. What they'll be is a major hull modification that allows for hanger bays to be mounted cheaply, with certain limitations. (And without the carrier hull mod, standard warships will pay heavily to mount hanger bays, since their hulls haven't been designed both externally and internally to support fighter operations.)
Carrier hulls will not be made faster due to this modification, nor will it improve their TM. However, you will be able to have speed 6 CVA's (for example) due to some sort of improved version of the I drive that will become available around the same time that you'd be wanting CVA's.
--- End quote ---
An interesting idea. I presume the modifications will make mounting weapons more expensive? Giving the choice of inexpensive carrier or weapon ship or expensive mixed type?
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Are you planning on dropping the 4HS construction bonus for ships finishing construction? Please! That's the other disincentive for large hulls in 3rdR and Ultra.
--- End quote ---
Gone, gonzo, see ya. No more 4 HS construction bonus.
Whenever I read thru the SF List archive, and this topic came up, there was almost never a decent reason given for its existance. I think that I did read somewhere that there was some underlying deep economic reason for it... but I'm sorry, that's not good enough for me. ;) there are certain aspects to the basic R&D process (and I mean very basic!!!) that are actually pretty good. I'm not talking about the tech trees and breakthru's etc. I'm talking about the basic process of buying RP's and rolling for success against the running total of bought RP's. It's a solid and really not particularly complex process that IMHO is an improvement over the 3e R&D process. And note that this basic bought RP process certainly does NOT require the use of the more complex aspects of 4e's R&D rules to be functional. Not in the least.
--- End quote ---
I agree here for sure. If I were to remake the Ultra model, I would remove every other tech item is just about every tree (making it more dramatic steps when you do get new tech), increase the costs for research and remove most knots. I'd also make combined research the norm so if you're researching an SL with a tech item, you're also researching the item.
I'd also remove the rapid weapon, variable weapon and anti-matter twigs and just build those advances into the weapons, removing -r, -v and -g type weapons as separate types and just incorporating them into the normal weapons. And I'd probably pull the capital and heavy branches back into the main trees.
--- Quote ---Fred Burton
Lead Designer for Cosmic Starfire
--- End quote ---
As for generational hulls, like I'd said, I don't think they're needed with proper improving engine tech and I'm just as glad you're not including them.
--Mav
crucis:
--- Quote from: "mavikfelna" ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---What are the MP limits and turnmodes? How will that affect other engine types, if they are included. Improving engine types (ala Ultra)?
--- End quote ---
The I drive speeds similar to 3rdR, except that above BB, there are some minor changes... All "BB" group hulls (i.e. BB, DN, SD) will have the same I Drive speed, and all "MT" group hulls (i.e. MT, MH, SMT) will have the same I drive speed.
I didn't include this specific info for a couple of reasons. One, I wanted the initial focus to be on the hull SIZES, not the engines. And Two, there is some new engine tech that I'm not ... quite ... ready to discuss. I will give you (well, everyone reading this) a thumbnail of it though...
--- End quote ---
Excellent. I think the smoothed table combined with set per-HS costing by type is the best way to make it work properly. It gives a good incentive to build bigger while still making smaller viable with their advantaged speed/TM.
--- End quote ---
A major advantage of the mathematically produced hull table for ships up to 100 HS (it was never really a problem above 100 hs) is as follows:
With different engine technologies in the mix, the hull types will be the fastest hull in a "speed group". (What I call a "speed group" is this ... for I drives, the BC is the fastest speed 6 hull of the CL, CA, and BC, while the DD is the fastest spd 7 hull between FG and DD.) A key point of making different drive types interesting is to make different hull types the "fastest" ones. For example, the DD is the largest spd 7 hull for I drives, but is the smallest spd 8 J drive hull. Different drive types will have different sets of "best hulls". I drive "best" hulls (i.e. largest hull for the speed) are CT, DD, BC, and SD, whereas J drive best hulls are FG, CA, and DN, and P drive best hulls are CL, BB, and MT.
Oops, I kind of got on a tangent.... the point here is that with the highly balanced table, the J drive speed 9 "best hull" FG will feel it's worth every MC of its size, whereas IMHO, at the old sizes, a 22 or 20 hs FG would still feel relatively undersized compared to the J drive speed 8 "worst hull" DD. By using the balanced table, regardless of the drive type, the "best hull" should always feel like it has the same value compared to the next largest hull with the same drive.
Put another way, think of these old sizes: 22 hs FG, 30 hs DD, and 45 hs CL. if you compared a J drive spd 8 FG vs a J drive spd 7 DD, the FG would feel relatively weak for a fastest hull type. OTOH, if you compared a I drive spd 7 DD vs a I drive spd 6 CL, the DD probably didn't feel undersized... at the old sizes. But with the new table, regardless of drive type, all hulls should never really feel particularly undersized compared to the next larger or smaller hull type, whether the hull is the largest or smallest in its speed group.
I'm sorry if I'm rather verbose on this topic.... I put a lot of effort into this table... I'm particularly fond of the 25 hs FG. The FG has always been the so-called "orphan" of Starfire. It's my hope that with 16 hs CT, 25 hs FG, and 33 hs DD, the FG will no longer be an orphan. And if you're using I drives and you are looking at the choice between a speed 8 CT or a speed 7 FG, you'll have to really think about the choice, because the 25 HS FG will have enough extra size that you'll have a hard decision about whether then CT's extra speed is better than the FG's extra size.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---First of all (not counting the Ic drive), there are 3 drive types projected as initial TL drive technologies... the tried and true I Drive, the J Drive (using the 4e model, speeds, TM's, etc.; a little faster tactically, with a 1/3 cruising speed, slightly higher TM's, 120* blindspot, ability to transit WPs), and a new military drive that's a bit slower (tactically) than the I drive, but with lower TM's and a 2/3 cruising speed ratio, and a tiny blindspot. The I and J drives use the same I/MP power ratings, and the "new" drive uses a "better" I/MP power rating. This new drive, which I colloquially call the "P Drive", may be a little slower than the I drive, but it's better in every other way (TM, Blind spot, cruising speed, I/MP's). It is designed to be a serious alternative to the I and J drives.
Regarding "improving engine types", it will NOT be done along the 4e model with strings of bland incremental generations. That is not to say that there won't be "improved" versions of earlier engines... just that it's my intention that they have considerably more flavor than a mere "+1 max speed, +1 TM". But at this point, I cannot talk about this (largely because it's still a work in progress).
--- End quote ---
Very interesting idea for a different engine. I look forward to trying it out. And I don't mind the 4e engine version but something a bit different wouldn't be unwelcome. Again, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
--- End quote ---
I came up with the game mechanics idea for the P drive on my own, but interestingly I discovered that a fairly similar drive was suggested in the SF List archive back in the late 90's. I wish that I'd had this idea for the P Drive back before DW and I started working on ISW4, cuz the P Drive would have been the perfect drive for the Bugs.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---How about fast hulls (carrier hulls in 3rdR)? Freighters?
--- End quote ---
Carrier hulls won't exist as a separate hull type in the 3e manner of speaking. What they'll be is a major hull modification that allows for hanger bays to be mounted cheaply, with certain limitations. (And without the carrier hull mod, standard warships will pay heavily to mount hanger bays, since their hulls haven't been designed both externally and internally to support fighter operations.)
Carrier hulls will not be made faster due to this modification, nor will it improve their TM. However, you will be able to have speed 6 CVA's (for example) due to some sort of improved version of the I drive that will become available around the same time that you'd be wanting CVA's.
--- End quote ---
An interesting idea. I presume the modifications will make mounting weapons more expensive? Giving the choice of inexpensive carrier or weapon ship or expensive mixed type?
--- End quote ---
Mounting weapons more expensive: most likely.
As for an "expensive mixed type", I haven't done any numbers yet, but you would probably end up with an expensive mixed type whether you mounted hanger bays on warships or weapons on carriers.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Note, I think Ultra does alot right and it handles alot of things more eloquently than in 3rdR. But I still like alot of the 3rdR environment. My biggest complaint with both is not on the tactical side or with ship design but with R&D. It's too simple in 3rdR and too complex, takes too long and is often too hard to advance in Ultra.
--- End quote ---
I don't disagree. Ultra does do some things well. It's certainly better written and edited than SM#2.
Regarding R&D, I agree on all counts. I haven't looked at R&D for a couple of months, but I have a number of ideas on R&D.
I don't like the complexity of the Ultra R&D system. I sort of agree with those who say that it may more accurately represent a realistic R&D process. But having said that, I still think that it's too complex and not particularly fun looking. .... BUT having said that ;) I want to retain most of the simplicity of 3e while gaining certain benefits of the basic purchased RP system.
I do not want 4e tech trees as such or "SL's", or a number of other things. There may be some prerequisites or some other things, but whatever they are, they'll need to be simple. They may not be as "simple" as having no such limitations as in 3e, but I tend to think that some limitations are not a bad thing. They just need to function simply and not prevent (at least seriously so) the player from having fun.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
procyon:
Kind of a late hit on this topic. But it is a slow night and I got the next installment of my N.C done early, so I had some free reading time.
Don't know where you are on the hull table, but the ES sort of looks like the odd ball on the list. The table has a really clean progession until you hit the 1/3 ratio for the ES. What would you think of changing it to 8 HS with a 1/4 to continue the table's feel. All the ship HS counts seem to give each one balance, and a clear role, but it looks like the ES and CT will kind of suffer the overlap that they have now. Too close to each other, with the CT being the heavier hitter. I've seen tons of CT swarms. Almost no ES swarms. A flat per HS cost is great but I think it will just accentuate the CT's dominance.
If you were to drop it back to 8 HS, it would definitely fill another role that wouldn't be in competition with the CT, at least no more than the CT is now in competion with the FG in your table. 8 HS would be on the small side I admit, but so was the EX. After the first couple TL's ES just kind of disappeared in most of the games I played, while CT's hang on forever.
I think it would also go well with the advancing engine tech. If you increase the HS ratios by engine generation it will give a nicely proportioned advance if they are all based on some factor of 1/4th. The 1/3 is going to have lags and jumps against the others in I:MP ratios,....perhaps. A lack of info makes that hard to state accurately. But here is what I could see.
Give each generation of engine an increase of 4 HS in I:MP. A 'beta' engine gives a +1 HS to an ES/EX (at 8 HS), +2 HS to a CT, +3 HS to a FG, +4 HS to a DD, +6 to a CL, etc, etc. The next step up would double those numbers. The 1/3 is going to kind of have jumps and lags if this was the case though.
We use generational hull in our games, and they are popular, but we use an old EC rule on the engines instead of the 5e rules. With it a beta engine will move a beta hull at the same speed as the earlier engine/hull combo, and has the same turn mode as before. (There is more to the rule concerning new engines in old hulls and visa versa, but it wouldn't be necessary with your model) I would think this type of rule would fit well with what I think you are trying to do. The better engine will move a bigger ship as well as the older engine used to, turn mode and all. If you base the TM on the I:MP levels, it would make a nice steady progression for the new engines (and get rid of trying to keep track of which ship has a better/worse turn mode because you changed the hull/engine generation).
Just a thought.
crucis:
--- Quote from: "procyon" ---Kind of a late hit on this topic. But it is a slow night and I got the next installment of my N.C done early, so I had some free reading time.
--- End quote ---
Nah, don't worry about it. I'm glad to discuss this topic!
--- Quote ---Don't know where you are on the hull table, but the ES sort of looks like the odd ball on the list. The table has a really clean progression until you hit the 1/3 ratio for the ES. What would you think of changing it to 8 HS with a 1/4 to continue the table's feel. All the ship HS counts seem to give each one balance, and a clear role, but it looks like the ES and CT will kind of suffer the overlap that they have now. Too close to each other, with the CT being the heavier hitter. I've seen tons of CT swarms. Almost no ES swarms. A flat per HS cost is great but I think it will just accentuate the CT's dominance.
--- End quote ---
Procyon, the thing to remember about hull tables is (this may seem like a bit of hyperbole) that they're only as good as the engines associated with them. If you've seen lots of CT swarms but few ES swarms, then it's almost certainly because everyone's using I drives, because I drives always have the CT as the largest hull for a given speed. In 3e terms, the CT would have been the largest spd 8 hull, while the DD was the largest spd 7 hull, and the BC was the largest spd 6 hull.
I've used the same strategy as was used on the Ultra hull table in this regard... different engine types have different "largest" hull types at each speed. Thus, with my J drives, the FG, CA, and DN's are the largest hull types for for their speeds, while the CL and BB are the largest hull types for the P drive.
The point of this is that races that use a different drive type will quite likely end up preferring different hull types ... hull types that are the largest for a given speed.
--- Quote ---If you were to drop it back to 8 HS, it would definitely fill another role that wouldn't be in competition with the CT, at least no more than the CT is now in competition with the FG in your table. 8 HS would be on the small side I admit, but so was the EX. After the first couple TL's ES just kind of disappeared in most of the games I played, while CT's hang on forever.
--- End quote ---
There are a couple of things that tend to hurt the ES.
First of all, when the EX is around, the ES isn't the smallest, least expensive hull type, and given the nature of the current non-Cosmic surveying rules, surveying is more cost efficiently done on the smallest possible hull because only 1 X is allowed per ship. This will no longer be the case in Cosmic. There will be certain limitations on the mounting of multiple instances of X type systems per hull, but multiples will be allowed to be mounted and function at the same time. This has been done because the Canon History made it clear that empires had a preference for larger surveyors, so it became necessary to ditch the 1 X per ship limitation because that limitation all but forced players to use the smallest ship possible to make surveying as cheap as possible, in terms of maintenance costs of the survey fleets.
Secondly, in 3rdR, you really only had I drives (for the most part, though some people may have used AD's J drives). And because of that, and the nature of the 3rdR hull table, the ES was not the largest speed 8 hull type. The CT was. But with multiple drive types available right from the start*, some people may find ES's more favorable to use. ... actually, I take that back... there may not be much reason to use ES's, as there appears to be no drive type that makes it the largest for its speed group. It sort of suffers due to its being the smallest hull type. Not much that can be done about that.
* You actually won't have access to all of the new drive types at the start. You will get the commercial drive (Ic) and one military drive type, either the I, J, or P drive. Also, your selection of the drive type will dictate the type of LRW your race uses, because each type of drive technology is linked to a type of LRW technology. I drives to missiles (and sprint missiles), J drives to kinetics, and P drives to plasma torpedoes (and plasma guns). This happens because those drive technologies are directly linked to what makes those LRW tech's function. Missiles uses I drive tech to function.... J drives use "inertial spread" technology to do kinetic weapons. And (P)lasma drives use their plasma technology to do plasma torpedoes and plasma guns. It does eventually become possible to develop the systems outside of your own drive type, but not at the start. The idea was to create some historical flavor and some consequences to the choice of a drive type. (Note that the J drives didn't add an SRW to kinetics as was the case with I and P drives, because Kinetics function quite adequately as SRWs at short range.)
--- Quote ---I think it would also go well with the advancing engine tech. If you increase the HS ratios by engine generation it will give a nicely proportioned advance if they are all based on some factor of 1/4th. The 1/3 is going to have lags and jumps against the others in I:MP ratios,....perhaps. A lack of info makes that hard to state accurately. But here is what I could see.
--- End quote ---
Actually, the hull size ratios were based on the following formula: 1 HS of engine would move 33.33 HS of hull at a speed of 1. Thus, if your I/MP is 3, then you're a 3 x 33.33 = 100 HS ship ... a BB. or if your I/MP is 1/3, then you're a 1/3 x 33.33 = 11 HS ship ... an ES.
I actually looked at other ratios ... 30-1, 25-1, 35-1, etc. 33.33 was the best and was the closest to the existing hull sizes. As I said earlier, I tweaked some of the sizes from the old sizes to the sizes strictly dictated by the 33.33-1 ratio because IMO a reason why certain hull types were less than favorable was that even with a drive type that favored the hull type (such as a J drive favoring FG's rather than CT's), a 20 hs or a 22 hs FG is simply undersized compared to other hull types that were closest to their "optimal" size according to the 33.33-1 ratio. By tweaking all hull sizes to the sizes dictated by the 33.33-1 ratio, hopefully all hull types will be favorable for their size, regardless of what drive they happen to use. (Oh some hull types will be more favorable than others depending on the drive type. But all hull types should be very well balanced for size, regardless of drive type.)
--- Quote ---Give each generation of engine an increase of 4 HS in I:MP. A 'beta' engine gives a +1 HS to an ES/EX (at 8 HS), +2 HS to a CT, +3 HS to a FG, +4 HS to a DD, +6 to a CL, etc, etc. The next step up would double those numbers. The 1/3 is going to kind of have jumps and lags if this was the case though.
We use generational hull in our games, and they are popular, but we use an old EC rule on the engines instead of the 5e rules. With it a beta engine will move a beta hull at the same speed as the earlier engine/hull combo, and has the same turn mode as before. (There is more to the rule concerning new engines in old hulls and visa versa, but it wouldn't be necessary with your model) I would think this type of rule would fit well with what I think you are trying to do. The better engine will move a bigger ship as well as the older engine used to, turn mode and all. If you base the TM on the I:MP levels, it would make a nice steady progression for the new engines (and get rid of trying to keep track of which ship has a better/worse turn mode because you changed the hull/engine generation).
Just a thought.
--- End quote ---
Big sigh. You're just about the first person who has shown much of any support for the generational hull concept. I liked the concept myself (though not the 5e version). And I actually had worked on some generational hull rules. I liked the concept because it seems to me that as engines advance, the number of HS's per 1 HS of engine they can "push" should go up. I also liked the idea because it seems to be very well represented in sci-fi, with hulls of a given "type" gaining in size as technology advances. Think of the Honorverse, where BC's started out somewhere around 500,000 tons and by the most recent books are now up around 2.5M tons. (Same with other hull types as well.)
Another reason that I liked it conceptually, is that as TL's increase in Starfire, smaller ships become less and less capable because of an increasing need for secondary systems that the smaller hull types just don't have room for when hull sizes remain static. For example, in the ISW1/2 era, DD's were very capable hull types. But by the time of ISW4 (against the Bugs), true (30 hs) DD's were simply too small to keep up. If you mounted an installation of cloaking ECM on a DD, you effectively turned it into a FG or CT, in terms of the remaining space for weapons. This is why the CL sort of became the de facto "DD" of ISW4... a CL, even at 40 hs, which was the CL size when ISW4 was written, when mounting cloaking ECM tends to have about the same remaining space as a non-cloaking ECM Destroyer.
Thus, the increasing need for secondary systems created a sort of bracket creep in hull types. But if you use a gen hulls concept, the additional hull spaces can offset this bracket creep and make the smaller types remain viable for a considerably longer time.
Looking at the EC56 article, I see that an embedded editor's note states that one of the "drawbacks" of generational hulls is "that you use less engine HS to move a bigger hull. This means that your weapons to engine ratio is improved." I have to utterly disagree with this statement. I see this as the primary benefit of generational hulls. It's what makes them worth using. I look at the 5e version of gen hulls and I think BLAH! What's so "good" about having a larger DD that is slower and less maneuverable? This is supposed to be advanced technology!!! Gen hulls that slow the hulls don't seem very "advanced" to me.
My general view of gen hulls was that speeds and TM's would remain the same as hull generations increased. Actually, I should state that my version of "gen hulls" wasn't really "generational hulls", so much as I moved the concept into advanced engines. That is, a 2nd gen engine would have had the same speed as the first generation of the engine, but with a larger, 2nd gen hull size. This would have been the primary advancement mode for advanced engines ... larger hulls for the same speed/TM. However, the griping about this idea was deafening. So I just said "(bleep) it" and did engine advancements in the way that I'm currently using. (I suppose that I could change my mind and go back to it, but it seems unlikely. Pity.)
I really sort of wish that I could have kept the "gen hull" engine advancement model because it would have been a GREAT way of explaining why TFN/KON, etc. ships never got any faster all the way up to the Terran Civil War (aka Insurrection).
There's another reason that I liked the "gen hull" style of engine advancement over other models... Some people suggested reducing I/MP ratings as a way of doing engine advancement. The problem with doing this is that the improvement in terms of HS's gained is very, VERY small unless the hulls are very, very large. If you reduce a BB's I/MP from 3 to 2.5, you gain a grand total of 2.5 HS (which would round to only 2). Big freaking deal. 2 stinkin' HS on a 100 HS ship. You might gain 1 HS on a DD. Again, big freaking deal. With the "gen hulls" advancement model, you actually gain useful numbers of hull spaces when you advance, not these chump change amounts of freed up HS. A DD might gain something like 4 or 5 HS per generation, or a BB might gain 8 or 9 HS per generation. Those are useful numbers... those are #'s of HS that can add a weapon or 2 or other useful things. Plus, another problem with reducing I/MP's is that it gets increasingly difficult to reduce those values for smaller ships that already have small I/MP's to begin with. Using the hull gen style of advancement, you are working with numbers that don't have "diminishing returns", because you're not using fractions that are getting increasingly closer to zero.
Sigh. That's all I have for now...
Crucis
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version