| Subtopic | Posts | Updated | ||
| Archive through March 08, 2006 | 25 | 03/08 12:48am |
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 02:58 am: Edit |
I haven't actually been saying it was a Federation ship. Just that you need to start somewhere so why not look at it as though it were a conversion to a Federation vessel and then consider the hypothosis.
How does such a vessel work. Does it have extra shielding to protect it from the fragility of the engines!?!
Does it have long range weapons that can saber-dance or does it have close range weapons forcing it to go where it shouldn't in order to actually fight!?!
Does it have a good turn mode or a lousey one!?!
Are the swing weapons good at drone defence (as this'll effect the only weapons that can reach a fast-distant target (drones)!?!
Most weapons will sit in a spectrum between Ph-1s and Ph-Gs and Photons and Disruptors (for Swing weapons amd heavies respectively) so pretending it was a known race and looking at what results is a legitimate point to debate from.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 06:49 am: Edit |
Gotta agree with John. I can't see any reason to do this, and a host of reasons not too. One good solid hit and this ship will be limping along at half speed. Unless using this system allows the ship to pack on more boxes (like armor, maybe, or extra weapons, APR, etc.) it's just aching to die.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 11:27 am: Edit |
John, What does "RPS" stand for?
Also, if (and this is a open conjecture) there is a relationship between warp power generated and the amount of shields a ship can raise... then a WTE ship would have comparatively larger shields than ships of other races. using Ken Humphrey's suggestion for hybrid ships that use a combination of H2.0 Warp engines and H__0.0 Warp Turbine Engines, the ratio works out to be (roughly) 1 1/6 stronger per size class. Take a hypothetical destroyer with 6 x 20 point shields, a hybrid destroyer on the "Humphreys model" would have 6 x 23.33 box shields. a table follows with what I think the comparison would be:
| Systems | "normal | "Humphrey's | Total |
| DD" | Style DD" | Power | |
| Sh#1 | 20 | 23 | - |
| Sh#2 | 20 | 23 | - |
| Sh#3 | 20 | 23 | - |
| Sh#4 | 20 | 23 | - |
| Sh#5 | 20 | 23 | - |
| Sh#6 | 20 | 23 | - |
| LWarp | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| RWarp | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| CWarp | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| CWTE | 0 | 5 | 10 |
| Imp | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| APR | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Size Class | 4 | 4 | - |
| Move Cost | 0.50 | 0.50 | - |
| By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 12:10 pm: Edit |
Note: If WTE is hit only on center warp it become immune to Mizia. It becomes very protected. You would minimumly have to kill all Battery, Cargo, and Foward Hull before hitting a single WTE. That means that about 25-35% of the ship will need to be destroyed to before hitting the WTE. Of course once 1/2-2/3 of the WTE is destroyed, the ship will be crippled, even if it producess 8, 4, 2.
A ship with only 1-2 WTE, especially if it is only hit on center warp, would immediately be a target for H&R raids. In fact, a suggested tactic would be for a opponent to close and alpha strike. Then using all transporters, H&R on the WTE.
| By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 12:19 pm: Edit |
RPS stands for Rock/Paper/Scissors. It comes from tournament.
It means a ships ability to be balanced against a variety of opponents. Or Race A kills Race B, Race B kills Race C, and Race C kills Race A. Andromedans are a example of an RPS race. Andros kill plasma races nearly always, but direct fire races nearly always kill Andros.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 12:33 pm: Edit |
Jeff,
"RPS" in this context means "Rock/Paper/Scissors". I also referenced this in my 12:30 pm post on March 07, saying that ships that were too radically different from "standard" have a dramatically increased risk of breaking the BPV system because of RPS, scaling, or sensitivity issues.
The "canonical" RPS situation would be if ship "A" can defeat ship "B" and "B" can defeat "C", but "C" can defeat "A". There is no way to assign BPVs that work for all 3 ships. A slightly different version, but still conceptually RPS, would be if ships "A" and "B" are an even match but "C" still beats "A" and loses to "B". I consider it inevitable that a game as complex as SFB, with as many different technologies and scenario types, will have some RPS issues. Players can handle mild RPS issues, but more drastic ones threaten to wreck the BPV system.
A scaling issue occurs when "A" is an even match for "B" in a single-ship duel. But in a squadron action, 4 "A"s will mop the floor with 4 "B"s. This effect also occurs in SFB. And again, if the scaling differences between two different technologies are drastic it becomes impossible to have a single BPV system that works for both duels and fleet battles.
I believe the current furor in the FedCom discussions about MC 1/4 frigates is the result of sensitivity. The apparently minor changes in the rules combined to affect the Fed FFG much more strongly than the other ships (though some of the posters there believe that all the 1/4 MC ships will ultimately prove to be "broken", with the FFG merely being the most extreme case).
I maintained in my 12:30 pm post yesterday, and still maintain, that eight-per-box (and probably even four-per-box) WTEs are too radically different from the run of the mill SFB ships and therefore have a greatly increased chance of possessing combinations of strengths and weaknesses that will be much stronger against some technologies than others. You will have (as John Trauger stated) an RPS situation making it impossible to set the "right" BPV.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 04:23 pm: Edit |
Alan, and Ken, thank you, I'd missed the RPS reference.
Alan, I accept that 8 points of power for each WTE SSD box "is too much".
That is partially the reason I used a 2/1 ratio for the ilustration I posted at 11:27am.
Combined with Kens point about having a single WTE center mounted engine, with two wing mounted conventional warp engines (Left and Right, H2.0 Wrap Power engines), it should eliminate (to some extent, the scalability issues.
also, with (using the example) a 1/3rd increase of warp power instead of 400% or 800% (using the 4 or 8 points of power per box of the original proposal), the ship should perform closer to the way most other major races ships perform.
If we built a WTE using Ken Humphreys suggestion, it would have a higher total energy output, and still be somewhat rsistant to Mizia kills. (atleast until all the "free Hits" on the DAC are used up...such as Lab, Hull and Cargo.)
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 07:55 pm: Edit |
1) I think mixing box types is a bad idea because it'll end up like the regular SFB feel but with slight fewer damage. You lose a little power until all you Hull, BTTY, APR Impulse and Shuttles are gone and then suddenly zoom; it's almost nothing but warp engine hits.
2) I don't like double output as it feels too much like Orions and people might get confussed.
Better I think to run with tripple out-put and see where that leads. Your cruiser will still have 10 Warp Enginbe Boxes to take hits on but the engines are fragile and take a constant loss with each hit rather than a sudden drop once all the hull, cargo and other power are gone.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 06:12 pm: Edit |
Ok, lets restate the proposal with the suggested changes.
Proposal: Warp Turbine Engines.
Warp Turbine Engines are an improvement of the warp Engines detailed under rule H 2.0. They are offered for use by a (as yet undefined) new race, or Stellar Shadows Journal Mad Scientist Workshop submission.
Warp Turbine Engines (WTE) produce conventional Warp Energy just as conventional warp engines do, but at a higher output. The WTE uses a Matter and antimatter reaction to produce tremendous amounts of energy. The Warp energy thus produced (by the WTEs) allows ships to move at translight speeds (more than one hex per turn).
(H__.1) SSD
Each Box in the cluster of boxes on an SSD which is marked "Warp Turbine Engines" or "WTE" produce 2 units of power.
(The Wyn Radiation zone can reduce the power out put of warp engines, but for purposes of this proposal, it has TBD what effect it would have on WTEs).
(H__.2) Required use.
Some activities require that the specific energy used in that activity be warp energy. This is specified in the rules for all applicable systems. (see rule H2.2 for a partial list.)
(H__.3) Warp Turbine reactors. WTE's may not be used for WPR's. (insert technobaubble excuse.) (this is a game balance suggestion, to prevent abuse).
(H__.4) Unrestriced use, Warp power (including warp energy produced by WTE's) can always be used for any activity that does not require some other form of energy {eg impulse movement C2.111 and sublight tactical manuvers C5.12 specifically require impulse engine power}.
(H__.41) WTE and regular H2.0 Warp engines may be built into starships symiltaneously. Normally, the WTE's are the center warp necelle, (to take advantage of the limited protection afforded by position), while normal left and right warp are regular rule (H2.0) Warp Engines.
Notes:
1) Repair of WTE has not be determined, although there is conjecture that they may not be repairable as WTEs. If they are repairable, it would be at the same cost and time constraints as normal (H2.0) Warp Engines.
2) There is a possiblity that WTE would have higher fuel consumption than normal warp engines. (for example, normal (H2.0 warp engines require 1 "unit" of fuel to produce 1 point of warp power in 1 x 32 impulse SFB game turn. rule H__.0 WTE require 2 "units" of fuel to produce 2 warp power points of energy durng 1 x 32 impulse game turn. If the fuel consumption warrants, it maybe necessary to devote cargo boxes to store the fuel reserves. this is still under discussion, and has not been resolved.
3) The WTE's may allow a starship so equipped to have slightly stronger shielding. such an increase is directly proportional to the power of the WTE's. This has not yet been resolved, nor has a specified ratio been agreed to. the so called "Humprey's Model" (already illustrated) had the ratio as 1 1/6: 1 when compared to similar sized warship with rule (H2.0 Warp Engines.) It is not known if the steves would approve of this idea.
Discussion:
There are three approaches that have been discussed:
The first being if all the warp engine boxes on a given ship were WTE (and would have a 100% increase in the warp power generated by any given ship design).
The second being the design suggested by Ken Humphrey's where 1/3rd (or so) of a given ship designs SSD boxes be WTEs and the other 2/3rds be regular (H2.0 Warp Engines).
The "Humphreys Design" would have 33% more warp power than ships with H2.0 warp engines and slightly (16.667%) stronger shields.
The third being MJC suggestion of using 100% WTE and increase the "power factor" of the WTE to 3:1 instead of the 2:1 suggested (I think by Alan Trevor).
comments?
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 04:52 pm: Edit |
There are other things to consider with the application of "improved" warp drives:
For the sake of discussion, let's leave it at the 2 points of warp energy per single SSD warp engine box that Alan Trevor suggested earlier.
If the increased energy is produced at double the consumption of fuel, meaning that 2 points of warp energy produced requires "2 units" of fuel, then there is litle advantage to having the "improved" warp engines beyond the increased energy.
the higher energy levels would be at the "cost" of limited endurance... for example,(in a F&E example) such a ship with WTE's would have a 3 F&E Hex range... but the ship would have more warp power, slightly better shields than a comparable conventional starship (if the idea of improved shields is a by product of the higher yeild warp drives is workable) and be (if the comments that Mike Raper and John Trauger have made are an indication) somewhat easier to cripple.
These are not Star Fleet Battle considerations, but include some characteristics more appropriate for F&E.
Looking at the 3 versions that we have discussed: the MJC (3:1 WTE), the Humphrey's model(1.33:1 WTE), and the Alan Trevor (2:1 WTE) each would perform differently in both SFB and F&E.
As I see it, the suggestion that Steve Petrick made last week might be worth examining closer...
He did talk about a "short ranged system defense ship" where long range/endurance is not as important as it would be for a conventional starship.
I wonder if a Size Class 4 "system defense" boat with WTE's and heavy shields, nimble manuver ability and a heavy weapons battery (of disrupters, plasmas or photons) would be worth pursuing as a design study?
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 06:10 pm: Edit |
You could also go down the path of somewhat higher energy out-put to protect the vessel but with massively higher BPVs ( probably ) to suit.
You could technobable this up with the idea that the saved space of the smaller engines allows for slightly more warp engine boxes.
So assuming a 2:1 ratio.
Your MC 1/3 Frigates would have 7 Turbo-Warp Engine boxes (14 warp power) or 8 T-warp boxes if twin engine design and 95-110 BPV.
Your MC 0.5 Destroyer would have 10 Turbo Warp Boxes (20 warp power) and 120-135 BPV.
Your MC 0.75 Heavy Cruiser would have 15 Turbo Warp Engine boxes (30 warp power) or 16 if twin engine design and 135-150 BPV.
And your MC 1 Heavy Command Cruiser ( this race would never need a dreadnought ) would have 20 Turbo Warp Engine boxes (40 warp power) and weigh in at 160-200 BPV.
In this way you do get a ship that can sabre dance well because it can move quickly or reinforce the shields ( which should also be stronger than most ) and this then counter-balances the fact that when it does take damage, it loses power quickly.
You might also want to give the ship a defect ( like an all Ph-2 suite or Ph-2 to the front and Ph-3 to the rear or maybe just give it "warp power hog" heavy weapons like Photons or some weapon of new design with that same drawback (maybe even with holding power required to be warp )) to offset the effect that it might otherwise be the ulimate sabre dancer.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:49 pm: Edit |
MJC, that would be one set of approaches...
I wonder, if an alternative Torpedo Boat design would be worth consideration...
I mean, there are already PF's, PF tenders and such... but these "Warp Turbine Engined" System Defense boats would have a 3 hex F&E range, the fire power of a frigate (or small destroyer) and the shields of a Destroyer.
If the "main weapons" of these torpedo boats were heavy weapons such as Disrupters, Plasma's or Photons they would have a respectable alpha strike. If the secondary armament were phaser 3's, ADD's, G racks or small plasma (type D?) they would have some ability for self defense.
At a guess (since the warp SSD boxes would be half what a similar sized conventional star ship would be) we might be looking at a split BPV where the economic cost of producing the torpedo/system defense boat would be different from the combat BPV.
the thing is, the economic cost would be double what a PF would cost... and the combat BPV of the torpedo boat/system defense boat higher still.
| Type | Econ BPV | COMBAT BPV |
| PF(G1) | 20 | 38 |
| TB | 40 | 80 |
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 02:33 am: Edit |
I'm not sure if you're mixing your objectives too much. Uber-PFs are cool but not something to base a whole race on ( because few people play PFs but a PF centric race could be cool for others...perhaps an all ships are PFTs or all ships are PFTs but only the PFs have super-engines) particularly since Warp Booster Packs for Uber Warp Engines might seem like too much of a stretch.
Better to stick with regular warship hulls with this ability and once you're happy with where they stand; then PF around a bit. Otherwise you paint yourself into the cornor of a mad scientist workshop thing and as ideas go, this may have more potential than just that.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 10:39 am: Edit |
MJC:
At this point, I'm still talking concepts not making a Uber-PF proposal.
The original idea was a single hex race that uses WTE's for its ships as opposed to "conventional starships" that most other races use... but this "Torpedo Boat/System Defense Ship" thing is following up on Steve Petricks post from last week... and I am not sure that it is either viable or needed in SFB's.
I do beleive that it is a new idea and I'm "pushing" the discussion more than campaigning for a new ship type.
I also suspect, that if a new type of ship (lets call it the "system Defense Ship" for convenience, or abreviated as SDS) is introduced, that it will be available to all races after a specified YIS.
There is more value, I think in keeping the "SDS" class as a ship (possibly the size of a APT or Fed Express boat?!?) and not as an attrition unit.
These could be very tough small combat units for use in planetary defense roles.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 08:17 am: Edit |
I think systrem defense ships already exist ( twice over ) being Monitors and National Guard ships.
Perhaps giving NG ships a FASY-ship refit might be in order to develop what you're looking for!?!
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 09:46 am: Edit |
No, I don't think so.
The national guard ships are very old designs being the Y and W models upgraded to General War status, but still very slow as the engines were not upgraded.
They (the NG ships) would still have good strategic range (IIRC being like 5 F&E hexes) where the system Defense ships suggested by SPP would be limited.
Also, given the WTE capacity, the system defense ships would fight more like Orion Pirate ships than your suggested NG ships would.
As far as your comparison to Monitors is concerned, I would think the system defense ships would be destroyer and frigate sized stable mates of the Monitor... after all, the monitors have DN classed fire power on a cruiser sized hull.
The System Defense ships would be similar in concept in that they would have the weapons and shields of a ship "one size class" larger than they are. for example a Destroyer SDS (size class 4) would have a cruier (or light cruiser's) shields and power generation ability.
But in no way would the frigate sized SDS approach the shields power and size of a dreadnought.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:27 pm: Edit |
Lets start by considering Alan Trevors option.
Each Warp Turbine Engine generates 2 points of warp energy, and assume that the size class 4 hull (in this context, its a generic hull, not federation, Klingon or any other published SSD).
Lets further assume that the Movement cost is 1/3 per hex moved using warp power (and impulse still only moves it 1 full hex for 1 point of energy.)
For comparison purposes, a "normal" warp drive star ship requires 10 points of warp energy to move 30 hexes in a given turn.
A WTE ship, could have half the number of warp engines boxes that a "normal starship" has, but generates the same total power (at the rate that Alan Trevor suggested 2/1).(in this case, the WTE might have only 5 warp engine boxes... but up to 5 other boxes for other systems, or fuel or some such).
As an alternative, we could let the SC 4 MC 1/3 "WTE Ship" have the same number of warp SSD boxes.
The ramifications of that suggestion would be:
1. twice the warp power that other races ships would have on the same SC and MC hulls.
2. Possibly stronger shields. in this case double the strength of other races SC4 and MC 1/3 ships.
3. In such a situation, the WTE ship would have the same general number of internal hits that other races ships have, but with twice the power (warp power, atleast) and twice the sheilding, the ship would be "tougher" to the extent that the damage needed to drop the sheilds would be more, and there would be sufficient power (from the expanded warp engines capacity) to "iron Jaw" to some extent... as well as the use of the larger warp energy generated by the WTE's.
I am ignoring, (for the moment) SPP's point of the lower endurance/higher fuel consumption that a Warp Turbine Engine would have... though in F&E it would have several characteristics that would need to be documented in some way... its just that in context of Star Fleet Battles, there may not be justification for recording the presence of fuel storage on a ship SSD for the WTE type.
Giving the WTE the same number of warp boxes as "conventional" star ships would make the conversion easier, and hence the BPV comparison a relatively straight forward process.
exchanging the 5 warp boxes for other systems would make Alan Trevors (and other peoples comments) point that the BPV comparision might be very difficult to quantify.
Without using Ken Humphreys's suggestion of using hybrid engines (both types of warp engine SSD boxes on the same ship). the mizia effect might be fatal problem for my original proposal.
In general, the WTE would allow a starship to use twice the energy (the 2/1 rate suggested by Alan Trevor), but only for half the endurance (suggested by Steve Petrick).
for a single hex race, minor race, or a Stellar Shadows Journal proposal such ships would very tough opponents in SFB.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:40 pm: Edit |
One other consideration...
@@@@@
If such a "undefined race" as was theorized for the original proposal, were located in or near Romulan Space...the race might decide that having "tougher ships" that could have stronger shields able to "shrug off" a Romulan Plasma Torpedo (The G and the S types would be bad enough, let alone the big one that the War Birds and War Eagles have).
If such a race were able to develop tactical warp and advanced "Warp Turbine Engines", with correspondingly stronger shields... it might be enough to let them survive the enmity of the Romulans... atleast until the Klingons made the deal to give warp technology to the Romulans.
A minor Race with a small fleet of very tough little ships might be a difficult challenge for the Romulan Fleet, at least until the new Sparrow Hawk and Sky Hawk ships get deployed... and even then, depending on what weapons the "minor race" has... the Romulans might decide to leave them alone until the Gorns and the Federation have been conqured.
Sort of puts me in mind of the Soviet Attack on Finland prior to the entry of the USSR into World war 2.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |