Archive through March 08, 2006
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(C) Movement & Maneuver:
Rule (H__.0) Warp Turbine Engines:
Archive through March 08, 2006
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 8 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.)
(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}.
Discussion:
TOS had a number of episodes that seemed to indicate that the Warp Engines of a ship were fragile and (depending on the plot lines) easily "knocked out" or taken "off Line".
TOS also indicated that legendary Science officer, Engineer or Captain had the ability to bring the damagaed engines "back on line" at full power in very short amounts of time.
This proposal suggests using 8 points of power produced for each SSD WTE box to simulate the ability of the legendary officers to reproduce TOS abilities of said officers to restore significant amounts of power in a single repair.
Another aspect of this proposal is that with fewer SSD boxes devoted to "the engines" (since 4 WTE would produce 32 points of power per turn) a "heavy cruiser" of a race equipped to use WTE's would have 4 SSD boxes representing the ships warp drive engines, wnd comparatively more SSD boxes available for other uses. (assumes that the Heavy Cruiser of this hypothetical WTE using race uses a hull of roughly the same size and movement cost as a conventional heavy cruiser).
If we were to compare a WTE using races Heavy Cruiser to say the Federation (so called'perfect cruiser') CA, the WTE CA would have some 26 additional internal SSD boxes to use for Hull, power systems, weapons, command boxes shuttles etc than the Fed CA would have, while the Fed CA would have 26 more Warp power boxes.
The Fed CA would have 30 warp power SSD boxes, the WTE CA would have 4 (though each of the 4 WTE boxes would produce 8 points of power for a grand total of 32 points of warp energy.
Each WTE box damaged (by say hit and run raids, battle damage etc) would reduce the power generated by 8 points of warp power.
The shields that the WTE CA has would be approximately the same size as the Fed CA (assuming that the shield size is determined by the output of the total warp energy produced by the engines).
The net affect of this proposal include:
1. The WTE CA ship would be more heavily armed (depending on what kinds of weapons such a new race is equipped with) than the Fed CA or other major races have.
2. The Major races (with conventional warp engines) would be more battle damage resistant, and would be able to participate in the battle for a longer time.
3. The WTE ships, once the shields have been breached would be crippled and lose power rapidly in prolonged battles. (repairs, however could restore power levels far faster than the Major races with regular warp engines wouldbe able to.
4. WTE ships would be predisposed to fighting quick battles and rapid disengagements rather than risk crippling shield damage and possible loss of the ship.
comments?
1) I don't think you can knock a few Engine boxes off an SDD and replace them with non engine SSD boxes like Torps. (8 Torps from a Fed CA would be hellish even with only 32 warp power being generated by the four WT boxes ).
2) Such a race would be increadibly easy to kill due to a standard spread of 12 points of damage scoring a 5 and a 9 and killing some 8 points of power with those two underlined warp engine hits.
Such a race would be target #1 for mizia players everywhere.
3) G22.43 would allow the Legendary Engineer to generate 32 points of warp power. Are you really sure you want this kind of Plot divice!?!
4) If it were a mad scientist's workshop thing then I'ld look for some other kind of high output engine (say each engine can be stressed for 1D6 extra output (per engine) but if you do take engine damage, then each point of engine damage generates a casscade of 1D6 point of damage applied to the warp engines, whilstever the engine is running in a stressed manner ). In this way ( or things like it ) ships have the ability to "NOT" if they so "choose" just as the Orions have the ability to "NOT" if they so choose. This is an important factor in SFB as giving players the ability to play the race as a regular race will allow ship to survive little WARP hits and will allow Legendary Engineers to not break the game.
It'ld probably also change the shape of the ships with ships using forrests of 6 box frigate engines...and a unifide engine based race might be cool.
I hope it generates debate though.
the Federation CAs warp engines are external and therefore shouldn't equate to any internal SSD boxes.
8 per box??? That's way too much, even for Stellar Shadows. The Orion can basically produce 2 per box, at the cost of wrecking his own engines. WBPs give a PF the ability to double its warp engine output, but engine vulnerability to damage more than doubles. In other words, the increased vulnerability significantly exceeds the increased power output.
By the way, since you're suggesting that the warp engine boxes could be replaced with other stuff, that suggests that the WTE boxes are similar in size and mass to standard warp engine boxes. So you'll need a reason why, rather than add more internal systems, someone can't build WTEs the same size as standard warp engines and go running around the map at speed-31, arming (not merely holding) full overloads, and arming phasers, with 6 points of EW, and erratic maneuvers, and energy allocated to HET, and still have a brick in excess of 150 points.
The fragility of Warp and the ability to get it back on line is a function of critical hits...
MJC:
1. Please note, I did not attempt to specify what SSD box trade offs were possible, that would be left to the design of whatever "hypothetical race" used the Warp Turbine engines.
You suggested changing 8 torps on a Federation CA. I simply point out that the proposal specified "for use by a (as yet undefined) new race". As such it was not intended for use by any existing major race, (most especially the Federation.)
2. Until the sheilds actually go down through voluntary action (such as to use transporters) or through the result of taking damage during combat, there would be no difference in the way normal warp engined ships function compared to Warp Turbine Engined ships.
IMO if WTE ship exchanges alpha strikes with another opposing ship, it should suffer accordingly. the "hypothetical Race" would need to fight battles in such a way to avoid over runs and serious amounts of damage for precisely the reasons you pointed out.
3. Perhaps WTE should be prohibited from rule G22.43. Let the engineers get the extra power from WPR, APR and impulse engines.
4. I cant talk for others, but I think I reject your approach in this example: I wanted to provide a short set of rules that allow for a different kind of system, that still provides some of the same functions that normal warp SSD boxes provide.
I think of these as "brittle" warp engine boxes, repairable, yes, but 1 point of damage seriously impairs the engines ability to produce power.
And yes, I offer this as a way to spark debate.
We will see if people are willing to share their thoughts on this.
WCS:
See the proposal, it specified "a (as yet undefined) new race..." not to be used by the Federation or or other existing Major Race.
Second, Your point can be taken (in one context) as addressing the distinctions between Mass and energy. (were talking physics here, as opposed to "just" naval architecture).
Each of the various size classes have movement cost factor, that when you look at it in tablular form equates to a number of SSD boxes (of all types) with a number of warp engine boxes.
The proposal assumes that the total number of SSD boxes for each of the size classes/ movement cost ships is a constant.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that the "laws of physics" is a constant, that to move 'X' SSD boxes with 'Y' Movement Cost requires 'Z' points of warp energy.
What the actual SSD boxes that fit into the "hull" of the "undefined new race" hasnt been decided yet, the discussion is on if this as a concept is workable before getting into the ship design discussion.
Anyway, this is for a "new race" - not the Federation, so pointing out that the "the Federation CAs warp engines are external and therefore shouldn't equate to any internal SSD boxes..." does not address the implication that this "new undefied race" may not do things the same way that the Federation does it.
Alan Trevor:
I'd thought about making each "engine" of the new race a single SSD box of 16 warp power points capacity... and then decided that if the "new undefined race" were going to field a fleet of ships of various sizes (such as frigates, destroyers, cruisers nd dreadnoughts) every engine would be different instead of "standardized".
I "backed it down" to 8 points per box thinking that 8 points of power per WTE box would allow for size class 4 (Movement cost 1/4 or 1/3) frigates, destroyers with 2 x 8 point box WTE and a movement cost of 1/2, light cruisers with a 3 WTE and a movement cost of 2/3 or 3/4, a heavy cruiser with a 4 WTE boxes and a Movement cost of 1, and a DN class with 6 WTE boxes (and 48 points of warp energy) and a movement cost of 1 1/2.
This lets the (progressively) larger classes get a bit of "redundancy" while still leaving the whole fleet vulnerable to internal damage and (especially vulnerable to mizia attacks.
As to the question of vulnerability verses power output, I did that intentionally. As I posted to MJC, ships with WTE will not willingly participate in Alpha strikes... they have too much to lose compared to the existing Major Races ships... the decentralized warp engines are simply more effective "damage sponges" than WTE's are.
They simply cant fight the same way that existing starships fight and expect to win.
you raise a good point in the observation: "By the way, since you're suggesting that the warp engine boxes could be replaced with other stuff, that suggests that the WTE boxes are similar in size and mass to standard warp engine boxes. So you'll need a reason why, rather than add more internal systems, someone can't build WTEs the same size as standard warp engines and go running around the map at speed-31, arming (not merely holding) full overloads, and arming phasers, with 6 points of EW, and erratic maneuvers, and energy allocated to HET, and still have a brick in excess of 150 points."
I wonder if perhaps the design of such a "Warp Turbine Engine" should preclude (as in prohibit) the ability to have more than a single SSD box in any engine?
if we did that, the "new undefined races" ships would have:
1. Frigates with a single WTE box in a "unified" engine and a movement cost of 1/4 or 1/3 and 8 points of warp energy.
2. Destroyers with 2 warp turbine engines (left and right) that have a Movement cost of 1/2 and 16 points of warp energy.
3. light cruisers with 3 warp turbine engines and a Movement cost of 2/3 or 3/4 and 24 points of warp energy.
4. heavy cruisers with 4 warp turbine engines a movement cost of 1, and 32 points of warp energy.
5. Dread noughts with 6 warp Turbine engines, a movement cost of 1 1/2 and 48 points of warp energy.
by making the WTE's "separate engines" there is a maximum number of warp neceles that could be mounted (and 6 on a size class 2 DN hull would be an upper effective limit, imo).
MCG:
Exactly.
This proposal brings into the game a bit of "flavor" that the critical hits provide.
instead of a die roll that may (or may not) result in a critical hit, the resolution of battle damage will very likely introduce serious power losses.
Just trying to suggest that there may be other ways to approach the concept.
Jeff:
Perhaps I may have misinterpretted your example in which you used the Federation CA but that still shouldn't give you any more boxes to play with. Just less Warp Engine boxes to take damage on.
For example: Santa's sleigh requires 8 reindeer to make it fly. Now, you are saying that if I find 1 reindeer who is as strong as those 8, I can increase the mass by about a 1/3 rd because I use less reindeer.
This just creates an exploit to give the excuse to add a massive amount of additional systems to every basic class.
Jeff,
I have another misgiving about this. "Radical" capabilities, i.e. those that are very unlike anything that any other race possesses, risk breaking the BPV system, because they are more likely to introduce effects that can't be compensated for simply by adjusting the BPV of the units involved. These effects may be RPS, or scaling effects, or sensitivity effects.
The two best examples in Alpha are the Tholians (in any situation in which web has a significant impact) and the Andromedans. Both these races have technology that scales very differently than that possessed by most other races. So while you can create balanced scenarios involving these races you cannot, in my opinion, create a BPV rule that will balance these races over a wide range of scenario types and BPV levels.
Your proposed WTEs are a radical capability. WTE ships will be far more vulnerable to damage than those of other races. And either the BPV will have to reflect that, or they will have to be given some other advantage to compensate. In either case, I think it is very likely that it will be impossible to develope a workable BPV, due to RPS and/or scaling and/or sensitivity issues.
If WTEs were two-per-box rather tha eight-per-box, bringing them more in line with Orion or PF capabilities, the vulnerability and the compensation required would both be less extreme. This would greatly reduce the likelyhood of breaking the BPV system.
Eight-per-box is too much.
William:
The total boxes (mass) stays the same. if a "major Race" heavy cruiser (Klingon or Fed) has 'X' number of internal SSD boxes, then the "new undefined race" should also have 'X' number of internal SSD boxes.
the total energy to move 'X' number of SSD boxes would be consistant between the "major race" ships as they would for the "undefined new race" ship. (if its a CA), then you need 30 warp power points at a movement cost factor of '1' point of power per hex moved, to move the ship the proper number of hexes in a given turn.
Now (as MJC observed) the total number of heavy weapons that could be mounted on such a "new undefined race" ship may be unbalancing, so I suppose we could adopt the same numbers of phasers and heavy weapons (or some type other than phasers and disrupters or such) but that they have the same general effect of ships of the "major races"...
The main benefit of improved WTE's would be the relative increase of non weapon SSD boxes on a ship rather than increased weapons.
(this is a change from the original posted proposal, again, I am trying to encourage discussion, not engage in flame wars or discourage people from participating).
Also, since this would be (imo) ar race specific technology, I fail to see how you can add the technology to all other races.
Romulans dont sell cloaked decoys, the Klingons are very careful with the SFG and the Lyrans dont release the ESG technology...
This WTE technology would be limited to the "new undefined race"... not something adaptable to the Federation or Kzinti's.
Alan:
I am suggesting an alternative way to resolve a characteristic seen in the Old Series (TOS).
It is perfectly possible that such a proposal is unworkable in the existing game structure (and I will rely on SVC or SPP to make that call).
If backing the idea down from 8 points of power per SSD box to 2 points of power generated per each SSD box WTE works better & fits the game system, then fine, I am not committed to the "8 points of power or nothing" stand.
the 2 point per box generation capacity is a improvement to the energy efficiency of the warp drives, but is not that radical a departure from the existing systems.
Actually, at 2 points per engine SSD box, this might better fit the S tech subject threads than SSJ.
My suggestions:
Make 4 warp power per WTE.
Use WTE as a Center Warp Engine that is half of the ship's warp. The other half is then split between two conventional warp engines.
Examples:
| SHIP | MOVE
COST | WTE | LEFT
WARP | RIGHT
WARP | TOTAL
WARP |
| FF | 1/4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| DD | 1/3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 10 |
| DW | 1/2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 16 |
| CW | 2/3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 22 |
| CL | 3/4 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 24 |
| CA | 1 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 32 |
| DNL | 1.25 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 38 |
| DN | 1.5 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 48 |
Ken, I hadnt thought about combining the two types... though in a couple histories I have Read (those on early British (Royal Navy) Destroyers and the RN Battle Cruisers, the earliest Turbine powered ships had to have separate turbines for use of "full speed", "Cruising engines" and "Reversing Engines" because the early ships didnt have the ability to change the direction of the propellors turning (and did not have variable pitch propellers)...
I wonder if your sugggestion might better fit a developing technology?
taking your table, I would suggest a change...(in red)
| SHIP | MOVE | WTE | LEFT | Right | TOTAL |
| | COST | | WARP | WARP | Warp |
| FF | 1/4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| DD | 1/3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 10 |
| DW | 1/2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 16 |
| CW | 2/3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 22 |
| CL | 3/4 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 24 |
| CM | 4/5 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 30 |
| CA | 1 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 32 |
| DNL | 1.25 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 38 |
| DN | 1.5 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 48 |
Comments?
Jeff Wile:
Well . . . the term "turbine" has a negative connotation. Turbines use fuel at prodigious rates, even when "at rest", i.e., idling. That might work for short-ranged defense ships, but it would be highly problematic requiring a large logistics train to support an "imperial" fleet (one designed to operate in a large empire).
So I do not see any "space savings" from using a "turbine" (you might need some other word) as the result is that you wind up with a vehicle that either devotes more volume to "fuel", or that is so short ranged as to make distant patrols a 'distant dream'.
The second problem is that the most obvious thing for anyone to do with the engine design is to only use "Center Warp", and if there is "extra space" created by using a turbine (I do not see this as I would believe that any such space is taken up with fuel storage, use it for "forward" and/or "center" hull.
A thing that is missing from your write up is the question of whether or not this type of engine box is harder to repair, i.e., requiring more repair points to fix than a standard warp engine box, and whether or not "hasty repair" as either a standard warp engine box or AWR is possible. (I would doubt any hasty repair was possible with this type of engine, but could see it being allowed.)
Finally, if you can "turbine" a warp engine, I just do not see why you could not "turbine" an impulse engine or reactor.
Steve Petrick:
negative connotations aside... 
i will point out again that this is for a undefined new race. I have no problem if it is a single hex F&E thing or just a few planets in a corner of some other races territory. the fact that it is not a "major race" actually fits the profile of having a "high energy" type of warp engine that doesnt have great endurance.
If the fuel contraints are a problem, perhaps some or all the "savings" created should (as you suggest) be required to be fuel supplies (in the form of cargo boxes). perhaps 1 cargo box of fuel allows the WTE to fucntion for 50 (or 100 or 250) turns of Star Fleet Battles game turns. (if all of the cargo boxes are destroyed, the WTE nolonger function...)
If we adopt Ken Humphreys sugggestion of a "hybrid" engine system, the (rule H2.0 Warp Drive engines would provide the long endurance (cruisning engines) for F&E strategic movement capacity while the WTE provide a "peak" power generation capacity for combat purposes only.
Such a solution actually address both problems you raised, as the combination for regular warp drives and Warp Turbine Engine drives would give the ships a slightly higher total energy curve compared to "conventional" star ships.
With regard to the repair question, if the WTE boxes produce 8 times as much power as a normal warp box, then the repaircosts should be 8 times as much. (this would be the original proposed amount.)
If Kens suggestion that the WTE only produce 4 points of power, then let the repairs cost only 4 times as much.
If Alans idea is selected, where the WTE only produce 2 points oaf power each, then the repairs should also be 2 times as much.
I would suggest that a hasty repair would only produce a "normal H2.0 Warp" box. full repair of WTE may require a dock yard...
I restricted the ability of WTE to function only as warp drives for game purposes... letting APR, WPR and Impulse (why not batteries while werre at it?!?) to prevent the very thing that Alan wrote about tuesday 10:29am post, were he question 150+ points of power for ships with normal sized engines.
it was a blatant attempt to prevent the exact abuse Alan posted.
You can use any technobaubble excuse, from the sheilding needed in the ship would require 8 boxes of internal armor (radiation shields) where each single WTE/APR/WPR/IMP/BATT must be surrounded by radiation shields.
where X is radiation shielding, 0 represents the turbinized power plant (be it APR, WPR, IMP or BATTERY).
I would suggest that auxillery power plants not be "turbined".
Quote:I think of these as "brittle" warp engine boxes, repairable, yes, but 1 point of damage seriously impairs the engines ability to produce power.
I would like to point out that my point was; If you build the ultimate sabre-dancer with huge point blank fragility then you build a one trick pony and that just ain't fun.
Quote:Second, Your point can be taken (in one context) as addressing the distinctions between Mass and energy. (were talking physics here, as opposed to "just" naval architecture).
Coz, if ya were talkin' Naval Architecture, you'ld be saying Displacement and Powering respectively.
Quote:As to the question of vulnerability verses power output, I did that intentionally. As I posted to MJC, ships with WTE will not willingly participate in Alpha strikes... they have too much to lose compared to the existing Major Races ships... the decentralized warp engines are simply more effective "damage sponges" than WTE's are.
8 power from a box and one eighth as many warp engine boxes is increadibly fragile. Render it 3 points of power and a third as many and you'ld still have a bloodly fragile ships.
Also does my 10 points of CDR get back all 8 power???
MJC:
The ship hasnt been designed yet, so for you to predict how "fun" such a design would be (or isnt) is meaningless.
We are still at the point of discussion of the concept, and barely scratched the surface of how it impacts game design.
Give it a rest until we have decided if the WTE generates 8, 4 or 2 points of power for each SSD box.
I think you can add a great racial effect without going to such moinsterouis levels of fragility.
Consider this. Have the same number of warp engine boxes for you sabre danceing ship but giveit photons for a drawback. Then give the ship the ability to change to MC to an MC that is about two thirds of what it was. But when doing so the ship suffers from difficulties tracking targets such that some free ECCM is generated for any targets the ship might choose to shoot at (like those of EM but with no bonus to protect the ship from fire). Then one simply switches on the get-out-of-jail-free mode and recalculated how fast the ship is going from the EAF.
| MC table | | | ECM EFFECT Table | Value |
| MC 0.33=> | 0.25 | | Speed | |
| MC 0.5=> | 0.33 | | 0-9 | 4 |
| MC 0.66=> | 0.5 | | 10-19 | 6 |
| MC 0.75=> | 0.5 | | 20-29 | 8 |
| MC 1=> | 0.66 | | 30+ | 10 |
| MC 1.25=> | 0.75 | |
| MC 1.5=> | 1 |
| MC 1.75=> | 1.25 |
| MC 2=> | 1.25 |
This way it pays to fire at long range and then run off to re-arm but the ship can close and fight if it wants to unlike the auto-cripple ship design philosophy...it's just unable (actually probably unwilling is the correct term) to close and charge simaltainiously.
Quote:If the fuel contraints are a problem, perhaps some or all the "savings" created should (as you suggest) be required to be fuel supplies (in the form of cargo boxes). perhaps 1 cargo box of fuel allows the WTE to fucntion for 50 (or 100 or 250) turns of Star Fleet Battles game turns. (if all of the cargo boxes are destroyed, the WTE nolonger function...)
So my new found cargo boxes effectively become armour for my centre war engine. Cool, my Fed DD analog just got hellish! 9 Cargo and 2 turbo warp on the engine will seriously allow it to come close...pitty the BPV will drive up to about 125!
If you can mix warp engines and turbo-warp, how do you stop the warp engines from becoming armour to the turbo warp engines?
I'm just saying...look at the Hydran Fusion ships that don't have many fighters. Hardly anyone plays `em because they are a one trick pony.
MJC I think ECM as a function of speed is on the auto reject list...
It is but this would be different.
The enemy doesn't find it any harder to shoot at you, you merely find it harder to shoot at him ( and/or anything else).
It could easily be a product of the engine vibrating which causes the ship's fire control to have increadible difficulty tracking targets but the vibration is only a few milimetres so your ship is still going to be hit by phaser and photon strikes.
for the umpteenth time, this is not for the Federation, so no photons... and not for the Klingons so it wont be saber dancing.
And It most likely will not have photons or disrupters or drones. I t will have some other kind of weapons depending on what the "undefined race" turns out to be.
Again, this is to discuss the concept of the engines and Warp Turbines, not existing major races that already are in the game.
The problem is that without any "padding" for the warp drive, ships are very, VERY mizia-able. Warp damage is one of those A-row-undeline hits on the DAC.
A internals that would constitute light or medium damage could easily leave one of these ships with only APR and impulse. We are talking massive fragility.
Unless this race always uses center warp and only center warp....in which case an opponent have to blow through their entire forward hull supply before their power curve even begins to feel it. This is durability that would be the envy of Hydrans when it comes to light or medium damage. Then suddenly the ship's power abruptly crashes down once the ship's F. Hull and batteries are destroyed.
This system will go a long way toward creating a RPS ship.
Just say no.