Archive through January 29, 2009
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(C) Movement & Maneuver:
Trans Warp Movement rule::
Archive through January 29, 2009
This is a "Mad Scientists Workshop" proposal for SSJ.
While not specifically intended for any race, it is offered as a "experiment" for any race that uses normal Warp Power and transporter technology.
An equation to consider: (A*0.2)=B
Where A equals the total internal SSD boxes of the modified Trans Warp starship. B equals the energy cost (in terms of energy points) to initiate "Trans-Warp Movement".
Simply stated: Trans-Warp Movement is a combination of normal Warp movement and an "onboard" self transport capacity for the modified Trans-Warp star ship.
Rationale:
In theory, any published starship SSD could be modified to use Trans Warp movement.
the conversion consists of:
A. 1 new "Trans-Warp" engine box added to the existing ship designs warp engines. (A Fed DD would thus gain 1 Trans Warp Box, a Fed CA would gain 2 Trans-Warp Boxes.
B. Calculate the "Transport Cost" of transporting the ship, and all of its crew, cargo etc) based on the equation posted above.
Assumption: the ship was been modified with transporter components positioned in such a way, that the entire ship can be "transported up to 5 hexes in any direction subject to:
All existing Transporter rules (including) the requirement that it must drop the facing shield in the direction that the player wishes to transport the ship, on the impulse before transport.
This "Trans-Warp" SSD box does not generate power.
Example#1:
A Fed CA has been modified for "trans-Warp Movement".
A Vanilla Fed CA (no refits) has 112 internal SSD boxes IIRC, (not counting the phaser 3s, Drone G, or the APR, but including the Excess Damage boxes, and those of the Sensor, Scanner and Dam Contol boxes.
Adding the 2 "trans Warp" boxes increases the total to 114 boxes.
Using the equaation posted above: (A*0.2)=B
the "trans Warp Movement cost" of the Fed Trans Warp CA would be (114*0.2)=22.8
It would thus require the Fed TW/CA to pay 22.8 points of energy to be transported 5 hexes...
Seems fairly useless and energy intensive.
Consider Example #2:
A fed FFX modified to Trans-Warp Movement:
(First Generation X ship, rule #R2.203)
the FFX has 70 internal SSD boxes (counting all excess damage, Sensor, Scanner and Damage Control track boxes).
the Trans Warp boxes added (1 to each warp engine) increases this total to 72.
the energy cost to transport the ship would be:
(72*0.2)=14.4 power.
now consider that this ship (the TW/FFX) has 3 X batteries with 3 points of power in each.
using battery power, (9 points) plus 5.4 points from any source, means that the TW/FFX could move using normal impulse (1 point) and normal warp (10 points, 1/3 Movement Cost), and 5 hexes (trans-Warp, 14.4 power) for a total of (1+30+5)=36 hexes In a single turn, using the existing Impulse movement chart.
The Transporter function is already integrated in the SOP (sequence of play) and there are already rules pertaining to the use of transporters.
Comments:
This is not intended to be part of the existing Star Fleet History.
It does, however, grant certain new capabilities and limitations to the game:
1. must comply with all rules and restrictions concerning transporters.
2. may not be transported anywhere existing transporters can not function.
3. may not be transported into any object (planet, starship, monster etc.)
4. like transporter bombs, may not be transported in to the same hex as anyother object, ship, or non-ship unit(including drones, mines or other object.
5. the shield dropping requirement retains the 1/4 turn delay called for in the rules. ie the ship must keep the dropped shield down for 8 impulses before it can re-raise the shield. this both indicates that the ship is preparing to transport, and the general direction that it intends to go in.
6. Generally, the trans-warp capacity allows a trans-Warp equipped ship to move faster during the same time period than a similar vessel could under the normal rules... or it allows the TW-ship the ability to escape faster. What it does not do is allow the Trans-Warp equipped ship to approach an enemy using Trans-Warp movement as the ship would have to drop a shield thus exposing itself to possible enemy fire.
While no play testing has been done on thihs proposal, it is assumed that the Trans-Warp conversion will be worth atleast +100% of the ships existing BPV.
Comments, complaints, hysteria?!?
Oh, and 1 more thing...
the Trans Warp engine boxes may be damaged... and if a ship loses its only (or all) Trans-Warp engine box, it loses the ability to use transwarp movement until said box has been repaired.
(may be repaired using the same costs as any normal warp power SSD box).
What CA can afford to spend 45 points of power on movement?
Great for Orions, but not too many others.
John,
Exactly the reason I posted the #1 example.
And it should be noted that the CA example would require 51.8 points of power for movement... not 45. (its a variable energy cost based on the number of SSD boxes).
and for that extra 22.8 point of power for the trans warp movement portion yeilds a maximum of just 5 additional hexes moved.
For a Fed CA, that averages out to 1.49 points of power for every hex. not good.
This idea really only works for ships with large batteries or X ships.
For the #2 example using a FFX, the numbers work out a little better... 1 point of impulse energy, 10 points of warp power (at 1/3 MC) and 14.4 energy for the transporter function. that totals 23.4 power (and the FFX has 9 points of battery power available) so it move 36 hexes (31 hexes using impulse and warp energy) and up to 5 hexes using the transporter function.
the average energy per hex is"just 0.71" compared to the 1.49 required to move the modified CA.
Infact... for the smaller Orion ships (with X batteries) this might well be an attractive option as after the GW freighters get faster... and its harder for the Orions to catch them....
Oh, and I had another thought about this...
The Trans warp modified ship would need to drop two shields, not just one...
take an example:
FFX in hex #2215. moving direction 'A' speed 31.
it must drop shield #1 the impulse before transport.
next impulse, it activates its "trans warp" function (using the 14.4 points of power from any source) to transport it self 5 hexes (lets say from #2215 to #2210).
It also needs to drop Shield #4 as the raised shield will interfere with the transport (as it transports to the new hex location in 2210, the ships apparent bearing now makes sheild #4 the facing shield relative to where the ship transported from.
thus making the process even more risky in combat... lots of "exposure" for gaining an extra 5 hexes of movement.
edit
Jeff,
You miss my point.
This is a horrible price/performance ratio. I'd never use it unless I'm running.
And if I'm running, odds are I am damaged or have expended power such that I *can't* use it.
I would also add that you would want to index your cost to move cost not number of system boxes. You don't want to creat another line-item that's individual to every ship in SFB.
Orions might be a little upset that their 25-point cargo boxes cost them the same as a normal ship's 100-point boxes.
Anyway, you're proposing giving ships the ability to break the speed-31 barrier and that by itself is probably a deal-breaker.
It appears that you are trying to reinvent the Andromedan Displacement Device. The rules say only the Andros have such technology.
I thought that too at first.
What he's really doing is giving the ship a sort of after-burner. He's allowing you to pay a horrendous energy cost in exchange for being able add +5 to your speed, even if it's already 31.
Since you're using your transporters to increase your speed, you have to drop the shield facing your direction of movement (which usually means your #1)
John Trauger,
No, I understood you.
I was trying to point out that most General War technology (and earlier) ships can't afford to use this system. (I havent tried all published ships in the game...though I suspect Maulers could use it at the cost of some of their battery charge reserves.)
The only time your going to want to use this is when your running to or from something.
And even then, you're going to have to use an oblique approach or dearture course.
its about a +16% increase over speed 31 (obviously, a greater percentage of slower speeds) and its unrelated to the established accelleration limits.
and its more advantageous for the smaller ships size classes than for larger ones.
You realize you're bending and breaking a ton of movement and speed change rules, right?
I dont ever expect that this would result in published SSD's that include a "Trans-Warp Engine Box" (unless its an example of what the changes look like).
Its intended for Stellar Shadows for players to experiment with... and as such does not change existing rules, history or SSDs.
That said...(evil grin) there is one ship type that not only would benefit from this technology... it might even be a required refit!
That would be the Federation Express (FXX see rule R1.205)
with 28 internal boxes (including the two "Trans-Warp Engine" boxes, the energy cost to transport the ship amounts to 5.6 points of energy.
with 1 point of impulse energy (1 hex movement), 3 points of normal warp power (and a movement cost of 1/10, results in 30 hexes of warp movement), and 5 hexes of "trans-warp" movement, for a total of 36 hexes of movement per turn at a total energy cost of 9.6 points of power results in an average of 3.75 hexes moved per point of power expended.
Not as good as 1/10, admittedly... but its a 16% increase in maximum speed.
the Steves would have to decide if that translates at the higher warp velocities...but if it does, that means the "fastest thing in space" just got 16% faster!
lets say the max speed of a normal Federation Express was warp 8. a 16% increase in top speed would roughly translate to warp 9.26!
The board of directors just might want a couple of these TM/FXX models for the most profitable/longest distance legs of the Fed Ex network.
John Trauger,
Yeah... I know.
But its stellar shadows and that makes it different from normal SFU/Star Fleet History.
As I look at it, the maximum "normal Warp+impulse" movement is still capped at 31 hexes per turn.
the added 5 hexes of movement is "transporter" movement... and doesnt actually happen during "normal Movement" phase.
It actually happens during the transporter phase of the Sequence of play.
(specifically, 6.Impulse Activity Segment, B7, Marines Activity Stage.)
That way, Trans Warp movement ships still interact with the universe... the 5 hexes of "trans-Warp" movement effectively all happen in one impulse... and thereby cause another whole set of problems/issues.
I wonder if we should define at what point of the game turn this "tran-Warp" movement actually takes place (say on the last impulse of the turn!?!?)
That way, a whole game turn can be played out... but the last 5 hexes of the transporter movement only appears near the turn break.
There is an alternative, if instead of at the end of the game turn/last impulse... why not specify that the 5 hexes of trans-warp movement happens during the 1st impulse of a 32 impulse game turn that 31 speed ships do not move?
That would be impulse #1 (and would be the same impulse speed 32 units(drones, plasma Torpedos...) move... and nothing else IIRC.
Technically, 1 hex of the 5 hexes the trans-warp movement is functionally similar any other movement provided by impulse or normal warp.
If the trans-warp thing was set for just 1 hex (instead of the 5 hexes we have been talking about) it would allow a starship to move at speed 32 during the game turn (albeit at a horrifically expensive cost in energy points...)
its the "extra" 4 points of teleportation/transportation movement that causes problems.
Having NOT read the above other than a quick scan of the first couple posts .....
I would NOT count Scanners or Sensors as "internals" because that's just a reflection of how good the electronics are. I'm not sure I'd count Excess Damage boxes, but I'm not saying you shouldn't. Even if you do, you would never count Damage Control as that just shows how many spare parts the ship has in storage lockers.
Now then, as this is an idea for increased movement (yes?), what if you only counted actual internal boxes (without the above) except that you do NOT include Warp Drive boxes?? Maybe your *0.20 would need to become *0.25 to balance.
Garth L. Getgen
Jeff,
I've been keeping out of this topic till now. But I want to second John Trauger's comment from his 6:35 pm post from Tuesday, 27 January. I think it is a bad idea to index the energy cost to "box count". The number of boxes on an SSD is an indication of the capabilities of the ship, and the amount of damage it can take. It can serve as a proxy for size but it is a rough, approximate proxy at best. I'm pretty sure a type-R plasma is rather larger than a type-F plasma. But they are each "one box".
If you don't like indexing the energy cost to a ship's movement cost, then pick an appropiate number (actually, SVC or SPP would pick the number) for each ship. Note that this is how cloak costs are done. Note that Romulan "Hawk" ships have lower cloaking costs than their Klingon/Romulan counterparts, even though the Hawk-series are sometimes larger than the Klingon ships. Those Romulan 3rd generation Hawks have a lower cloak cost because they were designed to be compatible with cloak while the Klingon ships were not.
In similar vein, choosing an appropriate trans-warp cost for each ship, based on what "works" for the game and for SFU history, seems to me to make more sense than simply making the cost some linear function of "box count".
Alan (and John Trauger).
Thank you both for participating... It may seem like I'm not listening/reading what you're posting... but I am.
Its just that the reason I elected to base the Trans warp movement calculation on total boxes was to "balance" mass vs capacity.
We could adjust the calculation any number of ways... to arrive at whatever point we need for playability sake.
I was using it as a "down and dirty" approximation to test the concept...not trying to "cram it down" any body's throat by any means.
The single issue I have with using a ships movement cost, is that over the years some ships with fewer internal SSD boxes would not out perform those oddities (ie ships with similar MC) but many more internal SSD boxes.
Using that system, a Fed POL would "cost" as much to use Trans-Warp Movement as a Fed FFB.
I guess what I was trying to achieve was a standard that smaller ships with fewer SSD boxes would pay a lower Trans-Warp energy cost than larger ships with far more capabilities.
Even Size Class wouldnt work as some DN's have far more mass and systems than other DN's (especially if you consider older/earlier DNs verses the late GW war Refitted DNH's.
From that point of view, using BPV's as the basis of the equation would work as (IMO) the BPV does apportion capability on a consistant value system.
Of course, if we were to use BPV, the calculation would have to just use the base number ignoring drone speed upgrades, CO's etc.
Or we coould let SVC or SPP pick a number.
I'm good with that approach as well.
Garth,
Yeah, we could look at not including the tracks of boxes for Sensors and scanners, exess damage...
As I told Alan and John, the reason to include them was because I wanted to give smaller ships an advantage in using the system... and while all starships use Sensors and scanners... the general rule seems to be the larger the ship the more sensors and scanners there would be.
by inflating the number, the trans-warp energy cost woujld also increase making it prohibitively expensive for DN's and BBs (and to a lesser extent, CA's) to use Trans-Warp Movement.
As far as substituting a manual count of all SSD boxes for the Trans-Warp energy cost... yeah, I'm willing to work on that.
I'm still hoping that a way can be found that will impart an advantage for smaller ships compared to the larger Size Classes... but that is something we can discuss.
Curious...
Just looking at what effect Garth's and other peoples recommendation to not count sensor scanner Dmaage Control etc... boxes, drops the FXX down to 18 internal SSD boxes... add 2 Trans warp engine boxes (that do not generate any power...) and you have 20 SSD boxes, multiply by 0.2 power cost of the Trans Warp movement equation, and you get 4.0 power costs for the FXX TW thing.
It means that the FXX could move at 30 hexes per turn (using its impulse engine to help power the TW devices) and still move at 35 hexes per turn trans warp + normal warp, half powered shields, life support, passive fire control... and not have to use its batteries at all.
Novel... when I started this I assumed that any ship using this rule would be required to tap its batteries (thus limiting to Trans Warp movement to 1 turn duration.
Yet here we have a standard ship able to use it virtually unlimited (atleast as long as the ships fuel holds out.)
I guess the FXX is the exception...
OK, there have been enough comments (and some interest in the idea, it would appear.)
Since no one likes the idea of counting SSD boxes, but I would still like to give smaller ships some sort of advantage in this process... lets take a look at the original equation and see if by "adjusting it" we can come up with a better system.
Somebody suggested using the ships movement cost, and others suggested perhaps integrating the size class into the process we might get a "better" system.
proposal modification#1
Consider the following equation:
((A*B)/C)*0.2)=D, where
A=Ships BPV
B=ships Moment Cost
C=Size Class
D=Trans Warp Energy Cost
Example#3.
Fed Vanilla CA (BPV=125)=A
Fed CA MC=1
Fed CA size Class=3
the equation would be thus:
((A*B)/C)*0.2)=D, where
A=Ships BPV
B=ships Moment Cost
C=Size Class
D=Trans Warp Energy Cost
((125*1)/3)*0.2=8.33
Compare it to a Fed X frigate (FFX)
Where
A=112
B=1/3
C=4
The equation would be:
((A*B)/C)*0.2)=D, where
A=Ships BPV
B=ships Moment Cost
C=Size Class
D=Trans Warp Energy Cost
((112*0.333)/4)*0.2=1.86
And the Federation Express X boat would be:
BPV=80/28
MC=0.1
SO=4
the equation would be:
((A*B)/C)*0.2)=D, where
A=Ships BPV
B=ships Moment Cost
C=Size Class
D=Trans Warp Energy Cost
(((80/28)*0.1)/4)*0.2=0.4
Now this isnt "fixted in stone" but it illustrates a different appraoch using the MC and Size class numbers for 3 different ships.
Does this appraoch make sense instead of having to count SSD boxes for every darned published ship in SFBs?
Edit
Just for giggles and grins...
the equation for the Klingon B-10 battle ships works out as:
A=316
B=2
C=2
((A*B)/C)*0.2)=D, where
A=Ships BPV
B=ships Moment Cost
C=Size Class
D=Trans Warp Energy Cost
((316*2)/2)*0.2=63.2
The evidence would seem to indicate that the Battleship is too big to move using Trans Warp movement under the current technology.
edit.
Sorry, after I posted the last two comments, I discovered I made a math error.
Sorry.
Jeff,
My advice would be to just throw the equation out and choose a number that you think will create the effect you think would be appropriate. Maybe SPP will agree with your numbers (assuming he likes the idea at all, of course) or maybe he'll choose new numbers. But I think basing this on an equation is the wrong approach.
BPV? So a Klingon D7B gets refitted to D7K status, with appropriate increase in BPV, and its trans-warp cost goes up because 3 phaser-2s have been upgraded to phaser-1s? I'm having a really hard time with that. What about the cost of drones? A Kzinti BC with fast drones has a higher BPV than one with medium speed drones. This increases the trans-warp cost? Some things (not everything, to be sure) just work better based on TLAR (That Looks About Right) than a formal equation.
Addendum to the above.
In your initial description you say;
Quote:In theory, any published starship SSD could be modified to use Trans Warp movement.
I personally think it's very unlikely that SVC and SPP would accept this as a general mod available "in theory" to any ship, even for an SSJ proposal. If they accept this at all, I suspect it would be for a very limited number of special ships. So it wouldn't be a case of assigning a number for every ship in the SFU, only those few that had this capability.
Alan,
Perhaps thats for the best.
The more I "mess" with the numbers... the more it looks like only X ships will benefit from trans-Warp Movement.
Perhaps I should have posted this in the X files instead as a normal proposal.
the numbers assinged should use all of a ships battery capacity... so the assigned numbers might look like this:
| ship type | Trans-Warp | "normal" warp | Impulse | Trans-Warp | total Speed | TTL Energy |
| Energy Cost | Energy Cost | Energy Cost | Speed | | for movemnt |
| CX | 15 | 30 | 1 | 5 | 35 | 46 |
| DDX | 9 | 15 | 1 | 5 | 35 | 25 |
| FFX | 6 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 35 | 17 |
| GSX | 15 | 30 | 1 | 5 | 35 | 46 |
| SCX | 9 | 15 | 1 | 5 | 35 | 25 |
| FXX | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 35 | 7 |
Comments, corrections, coronary?
Yeah, what Alan said. Why not something like "six times movement cost"?