Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 02, 2002	25		04/02 03:59pm
	Archive through April 03, 2002	25		04/03 04:49am
	Archive through April 04, 2002	25		04/04 12:12am
	Archive through April 05, 2002	25		04/05 10:35am
	Archive through April 08, 2002	25		04/08 02:25pm
	Archive through April 10, 2002	25		04/10 08:57am
	Archive through April 12, 2002	25		04/12 05:50pm
	Archive through April 22, 2002	25		04/22 05:34am

NB

Currently, a phas-2 (mass 1) costs about the same as a trac and tran put together (mass 0.5 each). Given that, I suspect that most players will plug for 2 Tran and 2 trac and add 2 phasers to the D6 (which can obviously put more phasers on the same hull because that's precisely what the D7 does).

Do I just make Tran/trac cheaper still (or phasers more expensive?).

By Christopher J. Graves (Cgraves) on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 12:02 pm: Edit

5 Trans + 1 point of Btty power = 5 Hit and Runs?
3 Tracs = More Drone defence than 2 Tracs

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Hit and run isn't that effective. You are within range 5, and the enemy has a down shield. Would you rather plug 2 phas-2 though it, or down your shield and do 4 H/R? I know what I'd go for.... Maybe capture is a worthwhile goal however...

Ditto Tracs (although not so clear-cut). Would you rather have a P2 to shoot a drone down, or not shoot the same drone and hold it in a trac? NB klingons can normally defend against drones without using thier trac...

The main question really is:- Are there ppl out there that would choose the tran/trac over the phas-2? It doesn't matter if I think tran/trac are lousy if others think they are cool (NB there is a limit on tran - it would be about 9 for a D6).

By scott doty (Kurst) on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 07:18 pm: Edit

David: Trans and Tractors are useful in certain situations, not as useful in direct combat as a P-2, but useful for T-Bombs, boarding parties, hit and run raids, tractoring drones, enemy units, friendly units etc. Tractor number becomes critical when attempting a Gorn anchor or Kzinti anchor (they tend to be blown off your ship)and although I can not think of particularly "wonderful" use of trans. at the moment, I am sure someone else can.
In my system P-2's cost 1.5 BPV (FA arc) and trac/tran costs 1 BPV each. They all take up the same amount of space. I recently added a "phaser shock" section to mitigate ridiculous phaser boats, but the situation mentioned above could still occur. I can not think of any particular way to avoid this from happening, but if you do please tell me.
As an aside I did not limit tran (maybe someone wants a really good troop transport), but I did make LOTS of it really expensive.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 08:02 am: Edit

The D6 is definately under the number of phasers required to give phaser shock, so the Klingons obiuosly thought the tran/trac was worthwhile. They don't commonly do anchors, so there's no basis for 3 tracs on that line.

Currently, the only idea that I can think of is that trac/tran/lab/shuttle reduce the maintenance costs of a ship on the basis that they are important factors in peacetime missions (e.g., a ship with a lot of trac could "earn" money by helping in an asteroid mining facility).

This obviously does not help your system, however.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 11:36 am: Edit

David: I do not think that there is any way to really quantify WHY the Klingons chose the third tractor, it probably just fit on the SSD when it was originally made and was just more aethesticly pleasing that way. I suppose you could simply say that all "basic hulls, similiar to my BHCP's cost X and modifications cost X + some factor, making the basic hull cheaper and giving an incentive for the extra systems and fewer phasers.

By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Remember that the Klingon D7 SSD was designed to match the deckplans as much as possible. That is why they have drones, why they have three tractors, and why they have so many transporters, and why they have 9 phasers. Because that was the best way to match what was on the deck plans.

That is why it is so difficult to try to come up with a truly comprehensive ship design system, because so many of these original decisions were pretty much arbitrary.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Actually the original Klingon did not have any phasers, just lots of disr.
Shipcons are not that hard, they just take time.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 04:38 am: Edit

OK.

It looks like Me & Scott will just have to think up a few arbritrary reasons for trac/tran etc.. But I think maintenance is the key. I want ppl to have a good reason to build balanced ships, not just to have a ship that can nuke the enemy off the board, pushing the limits for the number of weapons and power.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:09 am: Edit

The missing point here seems to be that a lot of the limitations on the official ships come from factors that don't show up in the tactical SFB game. Therefore, to balance a ship construction system, perhaps it should be tied in to the Campaign Designers Handbook, with a defined campaign setting being a prerequisite for the use of the ship construction manual.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 12:10 pm: Edit

That's sort of what I've been assuming. For instance, I will put in a line saying that labs, special sensors, and transporters will be important in exploration/exploitation, and that those factors should be mentioned in a campaign system.

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 01:41 pm: Edit

One reason for the third tractor on the Klingons is the Kzinti and their penchant for drones.

Lots of transporters give Klingon ships the capability of boarding and taking enemy ships.

I don't see why people are really interested in this sort of minutiae of "why" a given ship has the resources it does. For whatever reason, each race has a characteristic mix of capabilities. Tracking that mix and figuring out the parameters for how much they can be changed is really as far as you need to go, right?

By scott doty (Kurst) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 09:12 pm: Edit

John: I agree with you that the minutiae does not matter for a shipcon, but for a campaign based system on economic points it might have some uses, although I think it is futile to try to discover "why" as there probably never was a "why", only it looked/sounded cool.

David: I am sure exploration would be of great importance to any race, but some may outfit all units for it, i.e. the Feds, and some only a few specialized units i.e. the Klingons, who then specialized their units for fighting, but both systems should work and be accounted for in the campaign system. I do not know which would be better, but they both should be options.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 04:14 am: Edit

Looks like part of the solution for this is my "racial traits" idea. It involves random rolling and imposition of certain requirements as a result (eg a "gorn" race must have big shuttle bays)... I don't really want to restrict ppl too much, but it can certainly be done.

John.

I want my design system to at least be good enough such that ppl would consider stock ships OK designs. I know what characteristics each race has, and am trying to design a system where extra shuttle boxes (up to a limit) are as useful as maybe an extra phaser, but in a different way. IU don't want ppl to pick up my design system and ask themselves "Why on earth do the flatheads have all that lab on their ships then?" or "Why didn't everyone have fighter launch tubes?".

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 09:24 am: Edit

David,

You're talking as if you expect people who use your system will have never played SFB.

Your Fed ships have mucho labs because the stock designs do. It's normal and expected for anyone who has put in time playing with the ships. No explanation should be required.

How does your system work with the basic set of boxes for a given ship. Is your system like Scott's in that a ship is started with a standard loadout of systems?

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 03:57 am: Edit

No. There are no restrictions apart from a base requirement of 1 box of a few systems - phaser,probe,shuttle,bridge,lab, trac, tran, impulse etc. The requirements get slightly stiffer as the ship gets bigger, but really are a pittance. Now I could use Scott's standard loadout, or say that a ship *must* have a certain amount of some boxes.
Neither do I expect ppl to design "Fed-like" or "Gorn-like" ships. I want them to be able to do whatever they please in terms of where they put the boxes down, just that there ought to be some reason for wanting all the systems in sensible proportions.

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Ah. That's a tougher problem because when you mix in munchkinism, ships will tend to look alike in terms of non-combat, non-power systems.

Try something like an advantage/limitation system that says X is the minimum normal amount of ystems for a ship and Z is the maximum. to take more than Z is some kind of advantage and taking less than X is a limitation. We could also define a "W", the minimum required amount of such boxes. You could also set a ship up with the W amounts and give the players a limited number of advantages they can take.

The whole point of overlaying an advantage/limitation system on the player's choices is to enforce some kind of design tradeoffs on the player. That seems to be what you're thinking of.

Hmmm. That's a good enough idea, *I* may try it.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, May 06, 2002 - 10:16 am: Edit

I've posted my design system to Scott. Hopefully, he'll have time to put it on his website sometime soon. BTW, it's not simple, but I'm afraid that it has to be complex to stop munchkinism.

Note that if you don't give yourself much technology, even your best designs are seriously bad...

The system is still evolving, and I would welcome comments. I know it has problems with plasma allocation, but that's because the plasma ships are not very consistent in allocation of weapons.

By Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (Schoon) on Monday, May 06, 2002 - 02:42 pm: Edit

With a game as complex and diverse as SFB, complexity in a construction system would be a virtual given.

Wasn't there a prototype ship modification system done as a playtest in the misty past?

Let us know when it's posted, and I'm sure the comments will flow.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Monday, May 06, 2002 - 06:27 pm: Edit

A second ship construction manual is now posted!

David: Your system is on the net with mine:

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/sdoty/

If you ever do revisions or additions just send them my way and I will repost the system, but send the WHOLE thing revised it is easier that way. I made it a PDF for easer viewing/downloading.

I have not had a chance to read it through, but I will do so soon.

A great thing to come out of this discussion might just be multiple shipcons all posted/linked together so possibilities can be viewed.

By Mark James Hugh Norman (Mnorman) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 09:42 am: Edit

Scott:
I had a mess around with your construction manual last night. A few comments.
BCHPs
A BCH should have a larger maximum size than a CA (after all, that is what the extra hull is for, supporting extra systems).
CL,DD,and FF should have their warp taken down to 20,15,and 10 respectively, a a rule limiting the extra warp to a maximum of 20% instituted. However, on CA and DN this reduced to 7 with CA being able to get 20%at the expense of losing 6 from it's shock rating.

Weapons: Currently it is possible to have a frigate with 4 R15 disruptors and no shock. To deal with this I would add 1 to all of the disruptor shock ratings, except the R10 which I would add 2 to the rating for.
Many weapons currently have a shoick rating of 0. This should be increased. I would reccomend giving all rack type weapons a shock rating of 1, Particle cannon a shock rating of 3 and Shield crackers a shock rating of 1.
However this is not quite enough of a limit to keep people to SFB weapons levels, especially with Plasma Torps. To deal with this I would allow each class a specific number of weapons spaces. These are:
FF 3
DD 5
CL 8
CA 10
DN 12
BB 19
BStar 24
For this to works Standard drone racks would count as 1/2 space per magazine (for this only), and ISC-style rear firing plasma should count as 1/2 each on ships up to CL, and 1/3 each on CA and larger.

By Scott Doty (Kody) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Mark
I do not want to increase the shock levels of disr because I do not think they need it, I want the only variable to be BPV. If a player wants a FF with 4 rng 15 disr then fine, but it will cost him.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit

This is a quick post in the light of SVC's new post on this topic to tell people that my ship construction manuel is still around and is pretty watertight.

I'm working on simplifying it in a manner that still prevents people from building uber-ships. If Steve ever expresses any real interest in a submission along this line from me, I'll tidy it up in a manner such that it is *much* easier to understand. Currently, a person coming in from the cold with no help from me would find it hard to get going as I have not yet put in much explanation text.

The General war tech levels are quite well shaken down now. The system is being extended to include early years and X-tech, which make life much more complicated.

The only major problems arise from trying to reproduce some unusual ships, such as non-shock ships which have unusually high numbers of heavy weapons (e.g. wyn). Some Omegan races also cause significant problems - e.g. the amazing amount of impulse power that the Chlorophon have.

I also have no rules for shock variants yet. I have ideas (which will work) for making variants from existing ships, but these are not formally written down. refits will be easy
Web and cloaks will be difficult to balance.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:27 am: Edit

I wouldn't mind having a Basic Equipment List like what was adjacent to the Annex 6A Ship Modification Cost Chart in the older commanders edition

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:27 am: Edit

Another thought: Maybe a "construction manual" would work better with a new version of the Patrol Scenario rules. That way you could define characteristics, and a battleforce could only take a limited number of ships with particular characteristics.

i.e. you say "if the ratio of total warp power to what you need to move speed 30 is more than 1.125, the ship is 'Fast'. A battleforce can have no more than one Fast ship." Or "If the ship has fewer than 5 labs (SC 2), 3 labs (SC 3), or 1 lab (SC 4) then it is classified as 'Wartime Production'. A battleforce can be no more than two-thirds Wartime Production ships if the battle is before Y179." "Total the tractor and transporter boxes; if the total is less than 7 (SC 2), 5 (SC 3), or 3 (SC 4) the ship is 'Underequipped'. Regardless of the total, a ship is Underequipped if it has no tractors or no transporters. A battleforce can be no more than one-quarter Underequipped ships."

This goes along with the usual restrictions on Limited Production and Unique ships, of course. (These restrictions could stack, or be separate; we would have to decide if a battleforce could include a Fast ship if it also had a Unique ship which could be classified as Fast.) I would suggest that only a published design could be Unique.

That way, you don't have to put in BPV changes to account for "min/maxed" ships that take away "useless" systems to add weapons and power. You can just BPV the ship on its combat ability, and let the battleforce restrictions deal with the optimization.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:29 am: Edit

Another side note: I don't think that the D6 and D7 are the same hull; is it possible to convert a D6 to a D7?

By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:42 am: Edit

Michael: 12/10 = 1.2; 18/15 = 1.2; 24/20 = 1.2; many frigates, most war destroyers, virtually all war cruisers, and the pre-war Gorn CL would fall over your "fast ships" rule (the notable exceptions being the Gorn BDD and Romulan Skyhawk, which both have 16 warp), but FFs, DWs, CWs, and the Gorn CL are not Fast Ships.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:43 am: Edit

Michael.

A well-written campaign should be able to generate some economic/strategic reason for transporters and tractors, making them more useful. A ship with more transporters would be more useful when helping to set up a base, for instance. You would also be able to evacuate more crew, which would no doubt help on-board morale.

D6 and D7 arn't the same. I was just trying to illustrate how difficult it was for a shipcon to make sense of them both as Klingon designs. They are one of the "problems" if you wish to emulate actual SFB ships.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Yes, obviously my math is not off, because I have put a total of five minutes and thirty seconds of thought into this idea. If it seems to work, then we can figure out just how many tenths of a transporter are necessary to make something be "commando assault" rather than "troop transport".

>A well-written campaign should be able to
>generate some economic/strategic reason for
>transporters and tractors, making them more
>useful.

Well, but that's something that we also need to work out--is this ship design system intended solely for campaigns? If the assumption is that campaign factors will require certain minimum capabilities on ships, then you can't ever use the system for one-off battles. (For example, how many Patrol scenarios have Megafighters and BCH, compared to the actual numbers of those ships?) If you try to solve everything with BPV, then you end up with wierd costs for things.