David. A few point I have noticed about the design of official ships.
Hydran ships seem to have more hull than anyone else. Thise works out at about 1.5 hull per Fusion beam (Hellbore ships are conversions)
Lyrans seem to get 1 hull per ESG.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Another thing. The best ballpark figures for BPV I have ever seen are Scotts design system. I have produced a ballpark BPV system for fighters , but havvn't got a way to post it on the internet, and it undervalues the Z-P (most fighters seem to have a Ph-2 value that is much less than a heavy weapon, but the Z-P costs the same as the Z-D)

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 01:45 pm: Edit

David: finally for this evening, warp engine techs. I would propose a new warp tech table that looks something like this:
Class 0 1 2 3 4 5
INT x x x 4 4+4 4+4
PF x x x x 6+6 6+6
POL 8 8 9 10 12 12
FF 8 8 10 12 14 15
DD 12 14 15 16 18 20
DW x x 16 18 20 22
CL 15 16 18 20 22 24
CW x x 20 22 24 28
CA 20 24 27 30 32 36
DN 30 36 36 45 48 54
BB x x 50 60 60 60
Basically I have made level 1 Early years ships, level 2 aproximately omega ships, level 3 pre-General war ships (but note the early interceptors), level 4 late general war ships and level 5 a cheap alternative to X-ships. However, The frigate and destroyer classes are slightly better than that, but the CL is slightly worse. To make the differences between CWs and CLs, and DWs and DDs really work you would have to introduce more penalties for the War classes

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Ooh, a ship design system. Let's see how badly I can break it...

Sample CL "Abusive"

Base Package: CL 70 BPV
12 Hull Reduce to 6 for -3 BPV
3 Lab Remove for -1.5 BPV
3 Shuttle Reduce to 1 for -4 BPV
2 Tractor Reduce to 1 for -1 BPV
3 Trans Reduce to 1 for -2 BPV
1 Probe Remove for -1 BPV
2 Bridge
2 Aux Remove for -3 BPV
1 Emer Remove for -1.5 BPV
0 Flag
3 Batt Remove for -3 BPV
1 APR Reomve for -2 BPV
3 Imp Remove for -9 BPV
24 Warp Remove 4 for -16 BPV

Sensor 6/6/5/3/1/0
Scanner 0/0/1/3/5/9
Damcon 4/4/2/2/2/0 Reduce to 2/2/2/0 for -4 BPV
Excess 6 Reduce to 1 for -10 BPV

Shields 28/22/22/22 Replace with 6/4 PA Panels for +42 BPV. Reduce to 2 front, 2 rear panels for -72 BPV.

(60/92 Internals base; 35/92 after removals)

Crew 40, BP 10

Turn mode E, -10.5 BPV
Poor acceleration, -3.5 BPV

1 Security stations, -5.6 BPV

4 FA Hellbores 8.704 BPV (16 BPV base, -20% for non-overlapping, -15% for ESG presence, -20% for power shortage)
2 RA Hellbores 4.352 BPV (16 BPV base, -20% for non-overlapping, -15% for ESG, -50% for rear, -20% for power shortage)

Total heavy weapon shock = 16, within limit.

6 APR free with hellbores

ESG without capacitor 4.25 BPV (5 BPV base, -15% for hellbore presence) 2 Space

11 FA Ph-2 13.2 BPV (16.5 BPV base -20% for power shortage)
11 RA Ph-2 6.6 BPV (16.5 BPV base -50% rear -20% power shortage)

====================
This has an ESG, four hellbores, twenty-two phasers and thirty power. Not bad for something with a negative BPV...

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Thanks Mark. Why early interceptors? Simply because they arn't that effective until the packs, so why not???? Or simply to make people actually build them?

My system does not allow for any weapon to grant extra APR/Hull/battery/whatever. I'd like to think of that as a racial preference/necessity for the weapon. Certainly, when you see the new version, you will notice some subtle advantages using Fusions have.

I could however introduce those elements later if there is really no way to get around it in others' opinion.

I have found that Scott's system has problems when the systems a ship has are less than those in his basic package - how do you BPV a frigate with only 8 warp? Subtracting 12 for 4 less warp can get you some very cheap ships, even if they are slow. In theory, one could abuse the system, and design crap ships which actully have no BPV.

Another problem which I have wrestled with myself is arcs. If you make rear phasers less expensive, what's to stop a player saying his heavy weapons are RA and always flying his ship backwards? Stupid, I know, but it does make you think on how to solve the problem properly.

By David Beeson (Monster) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Andrew,

You are now in charge of my shipyards with a 200% increase in pay....

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Andrew.

You break Scott's system above, but Scott's system is not designed to handle real abuse. Although I think you cheated in one or two aspects, the point is made (e.g. I suspect a ship has to have a probe and a certain amount of Exdam).

I'd like to assure you that you can't do that with my *old* version, let alone the (unpublished) new.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Well, it's hard to break your system since it dodges the whole question of BPV :-)

Your EPV values are substantially higher than SFB ships of similar combat potential, which is a GOOD thing.

My crack at a cheapish cruiser under your system (as per PDF in Scott's link):

Technology
Mass-3 (40), Hull-4 (45), Shield-4 (40), Battery-2 (35), Impulse-3 (65), Plasma-G (35), Svivel-G (10), PPT-G (5), CW hull (30), Warp-2 (80), Arcs-1 (15): 415 tech points

Mass 62 Base +2 Tech = 64
Hull Integrity 4 (tech, no mod for 2:0:3 ratio)
Required hull=9

20 Warp, 4 Imp, 3 Batt, 3 Plas-G-swivel, 4 Ph-2, 4 Ph-3, 1 Bridge, 1 Emer, 1 Aux, 2 Lab, 5 Tran, 3 Trac, 4 Shtl, 1 Probe-5, 5 Cargo, 4 F Hull, 8 A Hull.

12 hull purchased cf 9 required, giving 3 hull points for HET 5-6 and turn mode D.

Sensors, scanners etc left at default values (66310, 01359, 42220, 4 Ex Dam). 20 box shields all around.

Pick arcs on the weapons to taste.

=======

135 of your EPV for the hull, 141 EPV after buying twelve marine squads, with maintenance just 7 EPV. A bit more than half as much as the sample D6 to build, a bit less than half as much to maintain.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 04:43 am: Edit

David: a few problems with your system. It' can't cope with Hydran ships. I needed Hull-15 and mass-15 to even start to cope with something on the scale of the paladin. For a second attempt, seeing how that worked I tried a heavy dreadnaught(but of a more normal race) The Kzinti DNH was alright until I tried adding weapons. That ship needs 23.5 spaces of phaser, which is much more that the 16 you provide. What you really need it a progression in numbers of weapons. This would also allow the use of EY (using warp techs 0 and 1) MY (using warp tech 2) and X (using warp tech 5) I would also add techs -1 and 6 using Warp refitted (speed 16) and full X (speeds 40 to 50).

About the interceptors. My aim there was to make people have reason to build them.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 05:30 am: Edit

Andrew

I note that your ship is slow (20 warp) and uses plasma, which is poor at range. Your ship will also have an appalling command rating for a cruiser.

Intersting that you chose so much Tran, Trac, and Shtl. Maybe I overdid the maintenance concept. I obviously havn't given enough reasons for having control spaces (although the new system already addresses that somewhat - maybe not enough). The Hull concepts are entirely reworked - a hull box now effectively only takes up 1/3 of a space. Hmmm. you have cargo..

Your Phaser arcs will be pretty poor.

Do you think plasma is underpriced? What do you think it should be - more for that initial G?

BTW, 3 Plas-G on a cruiser will be illegal under the new system, but you will be able to have 2 Plas-G/S and 2 Plas-F.

Mark.

You will find that General war technologies are quite high, but I must admit that I havn't yet sorted out the dreadnought masses properly. I'll increase the mass allowances for DNs. I tried to give the Fusion beam a number of advantages - it is already a very small weapon and excellent on fighters.

A progression in the number of allowed weapons will really begin to restrict people. I'm trying to aviod the design being entirely determined by the technology. It may however, inevitably go that way if you really want to make the system entirely watertight and faithful to SFB.

I've changed the warp table somewhat, sort of half-way between your suggestions and the original. I'm mulling over CL and CW warp - currently I can't justify to myself giving higher maximum warp levels to a smaller ship. CLs will still have more or equal warp allowance at any level, but it will very close.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 05:34 am: Edit

Andrew

Why did you aviod APR? IIRC, 1APR and 2Impulse should have been cheaper than 3 impulse - but maybe your tech changed that ( you could however have got some APR tech). Were you thinking of impulse TACs?

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:36 am: Edit

David,
20 Warp isn't really slow - it's a 2/3rds hull, so it can make speed 30. It's not as fast as a full CW would be, but it's not too bad.

I went for the CW hull because that was the lowest tech speed-30 cruiser (needing only warp level 2).

I'm not fussed about the command rating, it's not intended as a flagship. A command variant might install a flag bridge in place of the cargo bay, or a seperate and more capable design could be used.

I did go with plentiful support systems to get the maintenance cost down. They'll also help if the campaign requires non-combat capabilities at times. I did consider cutting back further on combat capacity in order to get maintenance down to zero.

Cargo is useful for the maintenance benefit, any other campaign uses and to help balance the hull layout.

I agree that the Phaser arcs won't be great. Mass points to improve them could be be taken from either support systems or the PPT's.

Your plasma EPV costs look reasonable, I picked plasma armament due to the low holding costs and anticipated slowish opponents not because I thought you had underpriced it. The Plas-G with it's options costs around the same as a disruptor with it's; you might want to move some of the cost from the PPT to the actual launcher, though (I'd seriously considered dropping the PPTs to save mass and cost). The Photon is a bit cheap, as are the HB and PPD. I haven't examined your other weapons costs in detail.

I went with 4 impulse rather than using both APR and impulse because the impulse-only discount made it cheaper to do so. Rather than buying APR at cost 5 and 6 (base 7, two levels APR tech) and Impulse at cost 7 and 8 (base 9, two levels Impulse tech) I bought impulse at levels 4,5,6 and 7 (base 7, three tech levels). Buying impulse 3 rather than both APR 2 and Impulse 2 also used fewer tech points.

Three G's on a cruiser doesn't seem too outlandish to me. The Sharkhunter CW has four; the ISC CM carries two plus a PPD and four F's; the KDR has two S, two F and two D racks.

F torps take up too much space IMO - they should be smaller than G torps.

Your system does seem well suited to homegrown campaigning with a system of technology development, though I wouldn't be happy to play a patrol game against someone using it except by prior arrangement.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 07:21 am: Edit

Andrew

Thanks for the comments. I'll put in some fixes

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 10:33 am: Edit

Things coming on apace. Version 1.1 is now finished. I'm working on examples - nearly everything has been tweaked. It's now easier to use as well.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit

David: I have attempted to expand your original version to cope with X-ships and EY-ships. With a few more warp tech levels and a wider range of sizes, combined with and increase in the number of weapons allowed (most YDDs only have 2 Heavy weapons, while some DDXs have 4, and phasers similarly range from 5 to 10) I have almost got a working system for destroyers and war destroyers. I am now waiting to see your new system to try to modify that.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 06:15 pm: Edit

I haven't had time to look at the details of any of the methods, but one of Andrew's comments concerning David's method surprised me. He indicated it was easier, techwise, to get a CW class hull than a CA class hull. Based on SFU, I 'd argue that should be reversed. Yes, the CW hull is smaller, but it is also a more technologically advanced hull (ignoring things like hot warp). I'd suggest the order of cruiser production/technology should be YCA, CA, CL, CW, CX. With perhaps an early CL based on an upgraded YCA. Note that the CL could either be a 3/4 move cost or a 2/3 move cost, but should have fewer weapons than the CW (either a CA heavy weapon suite and a 1/2 CA phaser suite or vice-versa).

By Scott Doty (Kody) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Andrew:
Good point on the "tool ship that costs nothing", It never occured to me that someone would want to do that. I never really intended my system to be "perfect", but if you use it as intended you can create some wonderfully balanced ships. I am going to add the following to my construction manual:

The minimum cost for a unit is the bhcp. A unit may not cost less by the removal of items from the hull. For example a FF may not cost less than 35 BPV.

This would avoid negative point units, and would certainly encourage players to use the rules less "munchkinie" if that makes any sense. At least your "tool" Hydran would cost 70 BPV! You are 8 points (or 50%) over the shock limit, each Hellb has 4 shock points, and that would at least reduce you to 4 hellb, not enough power to do much with them, but still 4 hellb for 70 BPV.

David: When you revise your system send it to me and I will post it on the website.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:17 am: Edit

Scott: I have noticed a similar problem on a PA equipped ship as the section that Andrew used to produce his broken ship. Basically the PA cost is far too much, so reducing the PAs by any amount breaks the BPV.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:20 am: Edit

Mark, Scott.

I still havn't decided fully what to do about Andrew's CW idea, but I have made two tweaks that will make it less effective.

1) War hulls now cost more to maintain.
2) You have to declare war on someone within 1 year of building a CW hull (could put a caveat in here - unless there is a "major" war going on between other protagonists).

I'm having problems with actually fiddling the warp technology system further, as the CW is the only 2/3 MC ship, and it would seem odd that it was diffcult to make a warp engine for it when you can do it for a CL or DD.
If I upped the number of levels in the warp technology tree, I could fix the problem.

Mark.

Looking forward to your X-expansion ideas. I wanted to concentrate on getting the basic races and tech as good as I could manage before expanding. The bottom bricks of the system must be able to take the strain when we start stacking others on top.

I'm sending version 1.01 to Scott now, in .pdf form. As a courtesy, I'll email Mark and Andrew the file. Please note that I havn't had time to redo the examples - especially the D6 one at the end. They are all out of date. I havn't really had time to think through a few other issues either. Hull distribution is still troubling me, so I'd like to ask some questions (next post).

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:23 am: Edit

Hull distribution.

You have a ship with 18 forward hull and 6 aft hull. How many boxes of centre hull would be as good as this? (consider *all* types of combat together - fleet, single combat, fixed map, open map, etc....)

You have a ship with 12 forward hull and 12 aft hull. How does that compare now?

You have a ship with 9 forward, 6 centre, and 9 aft hull. Is 24 centre hull really any better than this in a measurable way?

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 07:50 am: Edit

Another question

You have a ship of the same size class, but double the amount of hull. i.e. 36/12, or 24/24, or 18/12/18.

How many centre hull on an all-centre hull ship are these values equivalent to? Simply double the amounts as before? (really, this isn't a trick question).

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 08:30 am: Edit

David: I would guess just from usefulness that 1 forward and 1 rear hull would be equivalnt to 1.5 centre hull.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 08:36 am: Edit

Corrections to current version (on proof-reading)

Maintenance.

"Base Maintenance per 12 month period = 10% of the ship’s value (before size/cost modifications given above).
Reduce this by 0.3 per lab, trac beam, transporter beam, cargo box, or shuttle, and 0.6 per aux con. No reductions are allowed if a ship has no Aux Con (which co-ordinates these actions)."

(rest is unchanged)

I *may* increase the plas-F mass requirement to 1.5 (it had been put down to 1 from 2).

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 08:51 am: Edit

Mark

Are you sure? You are saying that 9 centre hull is equivalent to 6 forward and 6 aft?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 10:59 am: Edit

Quick note regarding the plasma discussions:
1 Pl-S + 1 Pl-F = 2xPhot or 2xDisr in terms of "boxes" occupied.

This means that a Pl-S takes up more than 1 box, but less than 2 boxes. It is probably somewhere from either 1.25 to 1.5 boxes. A Pl-F takes up less than one box. It will be whatever is left from what the Pl-S takes up.

A Pl-G takes up the same space as a Pl-S.

The above has been stated and restated by SVC.

While SVC has never said this, it would appear that a non-upgradable Pl-G only takes up a single box. While this is merely a supposition on my part, the available evidence seems to support it.

(Please note that none of this affects Orion option mounts. It still takes two entire adjacent centerline option mounts to hold a Pl-S on an Orion ship. Consider it the implied inefficiencies of the option mount system.)

A KDR has two Pl-S and two Pl-D. It does not have any Pl-F.

Finally, based on the above, I would argue that a cruiser should be able to mount up to 4 non-upgradable Pl-G (only) with no shock effects. Also note that the Gorn BCH mounts 3xPl-S + 2xPl-F.