Looking at the starship tech block.

The first suggestion was to have DNLs require CF's and DN's.

ADM's suggestion looks like requiring DN's.

A third option would be to require DW's.

It seems like everyone agrees the DN block is required.

So the real question is what other blocks would be required? DW, CF, both?

I do not think DNLs should require the BCH tech block.

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Since on of the questions is the fast ship design, maybe a fast ship tech block needs to be added as a prerequisite for and fast ship, especially since this tecnology seems to be very special amd limited. It may not have been important when the fast cruisers came out as they were the only fast ships available i think, but not maybe there needs to be an addition to account for the technology.

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Looking at the YIS of DNLs, and their capabilities compared to BCHs (command rating, armament, etc.), at might seem reasonable to assume that BCHs require DNLs as a tech block stepping point.

By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 08:12 pm: Edit

IIRC, Gorns are another race that has a BC and a BCH. The Gorn BC is an refitted CL (like the Lyran CL->BC refit) by adding a rear bubble. BCH come latter on as a bigger and better BC.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 08:50 pm: Edit

The Gorn/Kzinti BC is simply a fully refitted CA. While the BCH is a true BattleCruiser.

The BCH desigantion was to help ppl using races like the Gorn, Kzinti that have BCs as the CA of their race from being confused.

The Lyran BC (instead of BCH) is simply an odd duck. It shouldn't dictate the general layout of the diagram. It could be added as one of the notes someplace.

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit

YIS may not be a relevant focus point, it is more important to look at design growth, one class is not necessarly dependent on another for its development. for that matter since the B10 was originally started in Y169 then you could say anthing after that depends on developing the BB tech block. Again if you read the description of the C7 it shows it as an outgrowth of the cruiser class not the DN, There is nothing in any of the ship descriptions linking BCHs to DNLs, in fact there is nothing in the BCHs that is an outgrowth of the DNLs. The Kzin descriptions defines is as the largest cruiser class.

By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Ed is right. While most BCH's come out after the DNL's, many if not all of the races got the BCH by powering up its' BC/CA's not by stripping down a DNL. The result is 2 different approaches to get ships of about the same firepower but different missions and uses.

Ken H.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Steve,

I am working on creating the tech blocks discussed here in Visio. Can you read this type of format? I do not recall if you said you have PC's in the office or not.

Also, if I create these tech block trees can they be posted somewhere? What type of disclaimers do I need to put on the sheets?

I do not have the ability to print to PDF at the moment - that is on my home machine and I am currently in Italy until christmas.

Also, are the suggestions that we are making here going to go anywhere?

Thanks,

Ken

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 03:34 am: Edit

Ken, I don't believe they have visio (they primarily run macs)

if you and SVC want me to I should be able to convert from visio to PDF if you send me a copy

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 06:11 pm: Edit

I want to let you guys know I have not stopped working on this topic. I am working on the VB code to make the diagrams. The "wizards" that are available to not do a very good job of it.

Ken

By Dave Cross (Davecross) on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 03:31 pm: Edit

I am not sure that a DNL should be separate from a DN. I don't see it as anything other than an alternate design of the dreadnought. There is no new technology added, no overfilling with weapons, or anything.

Reference the Alan Trevor, Nov 12 post. The DNL gains strategic speed by reduced mass.

If it is desired to have separate tech blocks, they should be at the same level. I think then there should be an Early Dreadnought Tech Block. From this would flow into separate tech blocks for DN and DNL, and from DN into other variants (except specific DNL variants).

Dave

By David Kass (Dkass) on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 04:31 pm: Edit

The DNL cannot just gain strategic speed by reduced mass. Otherwise all the hot-warp ships would have the same superior strategic speed and they do not.

Tactically, perhaps the DNL don't need their own tech block (the MC reduction could be due to the smaller size). But strategically, they do.

By Dave Cross (Davecross) on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Then have a specific block for fast strategic speed and that is the requirement (as well as DN and CA) for DNL and CF respectively. But then, these ships should not really be linked to anything else.

The "hot warp" for the "war classes" is a different type for cheap, high powered engines. (Nothing about the CF is "cheap").

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit

That would probably be my approach; a "fast" block (I'm not sure what to put it off of, maybe nothing) and have the CF depend on it and the CA. Have the DNL then depend on the CF and DN blocks (or maybe CF and DNE blocks, if a DNE block is added, but see my idea if skipping).

Somewhat Unrelated topic:

One idea I've considered is the ability to "skip" blocks. Basically research a block without knowing all of its dependents. Add a surcharge for each block skipped (1/3 or maybe 1/2 of the skipped block's cost). The surchage is applied for each unresearched block in the tree below the desired block. Thus researching three blocks beyond the skipped block means the surcharges would have bought the block itself. Obviously skipping a block could still make sense (wanted a tech just beyond it as soon as possible). The surcharges have no effect on later researching the block in question.

This gives a bit more flexibility and helps explain some of the oddities for various races without having to make extremely convoluted tech trees (ie the Feds skipped the DN block and thus have their DNL before their true DNs).

The tech trees need to be checked to make sure skipping doesn't introduce any bad loopholes...

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

David K, the feds had their true DN's first, the entry date of the DN's got pushed quite a bit earlier. also the date that things could have been built isn't nessasarily the date they could be built.

I don't like the idea of skipping blocks, there are to many ways this can be abused. consider making a box dependent on '2 out of 3 of the following' or similar things instead of skipping things

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 09:11 pm: Edit

The Fed true DN is the DNG, not the DN or DN+ and I thought the date of the DNG was still Y175 (with the implicit Y1 note of all size class 2 ships--so no earlier prototypes). The DN and DN+ are the Fed DNE (which did get moved earlier to remain consistent).

Given that you pay 1/3 of the cost of the block you skip for every tech beyond the block (ie including those that depend on the block you got by skipping the block), how do you envision abusing the idea? About the only abuse I've come up with are cases where the last block in the tree is one you want but the second to last is of no interest.

I just realized I wasn't clear on a couple of points. You can only directly skip one block for a given tech (ie all but one of the blocks it depends on must have been researched). Multiple blocks could be skipped if some were indirectly skipped. Also, there is no "double skipping" (ie skipping two blocks in a row...

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 03:17 am: Edit

From R7 - There is only one item that needs to be added - Operational Bases. I have placed it in the list costing 2 points and requiring BATS.

Question - Shouldn't there be a tech block for Photon's with range 12 and a block for photon freezers? Or at least a tech block for fighter photons that would include both.

I would like to propose adding tech blocks for the Phaser-G so that instead of costing 3 points for a 4 firing weapon it would cost 1 point for 2 firings, then an additional point for each additional firing. The cost would be the same but it would take longer to achieve the 4 firings...

The next module to be worked I believe is Omega 1.

Group Block ID Name Cost Variant Col # Requirements
26 2600 Wide Angle Phaser Tech Blocks 8
26 2601 Phaser-W2, Phaser-W3 0 8 2600
26 2602 Phaser-W1 2 8 2601
26 2603 Phaser-W4 4 9 2602
26 2604 Phaser Capacitors 1 7 2601
26 2605 Phaser Holding 1 5 2601
26 2606 Phaser Down-Firing 1 4 2601
27 2700 Microphaser Tech Blocks 8
27 2701 Phaser-M3 0 8 2700
27 2702 Phaser-M1 2 8 2701
27 2703 Phaser-M4 4 8 2702
27 2704 Phaser Capacitors 1 7 2701
27 2705 Phaser Holding 1 6 2701
27 2706 Phaser Down-Firing 1 5 2701
28 2800 Particle Phaser Tech Blocks 8
28 2801 Phaser-PP3 0 8 2800
28 2802 Phaser-PP1 2 8 2801
28 2803 Phaser-PP4 4 8 2802
28 2804 Phaser Capacitors 1 7 2801
28 2805 Phaser Holding 1 6 2801
28 2806 Phaser Down-Firing 1 5 2801
29 2900 Radiation Phaser Tech Blocks 8
29 2901 Phaser-R3 0 8 2900
29 2902 Phaser-R1 2 8 2901
29 2903 Phaser-R4 4 8 2902
29 2904 EW Shift +1 2 7 2901
29 2905 EW Shift +2 2 7 2901
29 2906 Phaser Capacitors 1 6 2901
29 2907 Phaser Holding 1 5 2901
29 2908 Phaser Down-Firing 1 4 2901
30 3000 Quantum Phaser Tech Blocks 8
30 3001 Phaser-Q2, Phaser-Q3 0 8 3000
30 3002 Phaser-Q1 2 8 3001
30 3003 Phaser-Q4 4 8 3002
30 3004 Phaser Capacitors 1 6 3001
30 3005 Phaser Holding 1 5 3001
30 3006 Phaser Down-Firing 1 4 3001
31 3100 Antiproton Phaser Tech Blocks 8
31 3101 Phaser-AP3 0 8 3100
31 3102 Phaser-AP1 2 8 3101
31 3103 Phaser-AP4 4 8 3102
31 3104 Phaser Capacitors 1 7 3101
31 3105 Phaser Holding 1 6 3101
31 3106 Phaser Down-Firing 1 5 3101
32 3200 Pulse Emitter Tech Blocks 7
32 3201 Pulse Emitter - 1 Pulse 0 7 3200
32 3202 Pulse Emitter - 2 Pulses 2 7 3201
32 3203 Pulse Emitter - 3 Pulses 3 7 3202
32 3204 Pulse Emitter Holding 1 8 3201
33 3300 Tachyon Gun Tech Block 6
33 3301 Tachyon Gun Arming - 2 or 3 Points 0 6 3300
33 3302 Tachyon Gun Arming - 4 or 5 Points 1 6 3301
33 3303 Tachyon Gun Arming - 6 or 7 Points 1 6 3302
33 3304 Tachyon Gun Arming - 8 Points 1 6 3303
33 3305 Tachyon Gun Holding 2 7 3301
34 3400 Antimatter Cannon Tech Block 6
34 3401 Antimatter Cannon Arming - 1/2 Damage 0 6 3400
34 3402 Antimatter Cannon Arming - Single Damage 2 6 3401
34 3403 Antimatter Cannon Arming - Double Damage 4 6 3402
34 3404 Antimatter Cannon Holding 2 7 3401
I was going to include all the phaser tech blocks together then realized that if I did that you could research holding for one type of phaser and then you would have it for all.

The radiation phaser has additional TB's for EW shifts.

For pulse emitters I selected that number of pulses that can be fired.

For tachyon guns I split up the maximum amount of power that can be applied. One of my other ideas was to split up the damage ratio to 1/2 what is listed on the damage table and then the amount.

For the antimatter cannon and the antimatter cloud should these weapons be linked?

Also as a general question - when there is fighter sized weapon should these be listed seperately?

I have e-mailed the visio file to David for conversion to PDF. Hopefully these can be uploaded to the web site, if not maybe the new tech blocks could.

Ken

By Simon Robinson (Loki) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Could improved CDH also include early years warp romulans to allow for those campaigns where players want to use early years ships but don't want to be resticted by the treaty with the Klingons?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 08:02 pm: Edit

I am working on rules for the Andromedan RTN system for my campaign.

Does anyone have a framework to work from?

Thanks,

Ken

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 04:41 am: Edit

I was in a campaign as an Andro invader. I had 3 'entry' points where my initial ships came into the alpha sector (Actually a homebrew non-historical map). The units came out a random direction and # of hexes from that point. From there I could roam around as normal for the campaign, and try to set up satbases.

Satbases were hidden (the galactics had to spend an entire turn with special sensors in one hex looking for one to have a chance of finding it)and extended the 'supply' range of the rtn into the alpha sector, and so on and so on, until eventually I would have a spiders web of them extending from the entry points.

Any andro unit using RTN movement only could, if beginning from a satb, end movement at a satb anywhere within the satb network.

It made the andros alot of fun strategically, and we even worked out rules for an initial economy base in a magellan like cloud. Oh come to think of it, I had to work my way down each 'arm' between the 2 galaxies before entering the player filled one.

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 03:37 pm: Edit

In the last few campaigns where I played Andro, things were done in a similar fashion as with Geoffs. The exceptions were that we had different maps instead of the F&E one, and my movements were hidden until someone had encountered me and survived.
The other major difference was I had to track all of my supply for my ships in the "main" galaxy (which you may not have to deal with).

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Here is a start:

RTN Discovery

To discover the RTN Network a race must collect tactical intelligence (D17.0) on the Andromeda’s.

For each 1,000 points of tactical intelligence of intel the race will be able to acquire an additional level of information.

Level Discovery
0 Discover the Andromedan’s exist. This is the first encounter with the Andromedan’s.
1 Gathering Intelligence
2 Discover the Andromedan’s use a network to travel. Once this level is complete the race will be able to look for RTN gates.
3 Discover the Andromedan’s are from the Lesser Magellan Galaxy.
4 Able to mount operation unity.

During battles a ship can launch a “buoy” by using a probe to record all of the intelligence gathered. The “buoy” will contain all the intelligence gathered up to that point. It can be launched during any impulse during the probe step.

The chance of another race finding the “buoy” would be 3-6 if they are actively looking for it and 6-6 if they are not. This would be the procedure used by Orion pirates who arrived after the battle first.

Warp Gates.
Warp gates come in large (size class 1), medium (size class 2) and small (size class 3). A warp gate can transport or receive units smaller then themselves (i.e. a size 1 gate can transport size class 2 and small units and a size class 2 gate can transport or receive size class 3 or smaller units).

To create a warp gate SSD use a base the size of the gate – replace all systems except cargo, repair (in core section), hull, PA panels with battery boxes. All warp are replaced with APR (or Aux warp???). The SB modules can not dock internally.

The number of ships that can be placed into the RTN per “incident” is equal to the amount of power available.

Power Requirement = (10 – Size class) * number of hexes transported. Example: A size class 2 ship being sent 12 hexes would require (10 – 2) * 12 or 96 units of power.

The chance to detect the transport is equal to the power requirement divided by 10. For the above example the chance of detection would be 96 / 10 or 9.6%.

Notes – need to look at the history in the R section and U6.

By Mike Todaro (Aurelius) on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Ken, are you still working on this as an update to the CDH? I'm interested in seeing what else you've done, if you're willing to share.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Lets try to get this going again. First I have a pretty good table of contents of the CDH here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/TOC%20Files/SFB%20TOC%20Campaign%20Designer%27s%20Handbook.pdf
Do all the sections need updated or mostly just the tech blocks? Is there enough material that needs updated for another complete book? Would it be better to just update a few sections at a time and maybe get those printed as Captain's Log Articles? Looks like the last post was in 2006, how much has been added to the game since then that will need added updated for the book?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 06:08 pm: Edit

The tech blocks are a good a place to start as any.

I have the work that was done and it is easy to update and create the tech block diagrams.