With GURPS Prime Directive, a number of additions have already been added to SFB.

Notably the 100 ton seeker scout version in a fairly recent Captains Log, the Free trader (which shares the same name as the Traveler equivilent).Traveler had a number of designs that might easily find a place in the SFU.

I have a couple ideas to present, but thought I'd open the discussion with an introduction.

My first thought was to compare the design philosophies and see if there were any common points.

For example, the Federation Police Cutter/ Corvette / cruiser (the POL) has 1 photon, 3 phaser I's, (the + variant) has 2 phaser 3's, a G drone rack and (depending on if you count the probe as a weapon) a probe launcher. that is 8 "hard points on the hull.

going by the Traveler system, that equates to a 800 ton hull, which, (coincidently) happens to be the same catagory as the "Type 'C' Cruiser.

the Traveler description of which is: "A quasi military vessel designed for private or semi military missions, It is equipped with 25 staterooms (5 for senior crew) and double occupancy for the remaining 40 crew members. (officers would be CO, Navigator, pilot, medic and cheif engineer. enlisted ratings include 8 gunners, 4 engineers, 3 galley cooks, 2 pinance (read as shuttle pilots) 2 pinance (read as shuttle) gunners, 1 admin clerk 2 medical orderlies, 1 FA observer, and 17 spaces for reserach personnel, techs or troops.

80 tons of cargo capacity and 5 hardpoints specified.

This compares fairly well with the POL with 2 cargo boxes and 60 personel (6 crew units) and 2 boarding parties (10 troops). and 2 pinances (shuttles).

Guess the proposal really is to identify what changes need to be done or should be done to accomodate the traveler GURPS designs in the SFB.

For example, a commercial design for a POL variant that reduces existing SSD system boxes of various types to increase the cargo bay of the POL... you could even call it a type C merchant cruiser with 8 cargo boxes (assuming a cargo box is 10 tons of volume...)

heck, a nimble ship with troops, the ability to land on planetrs (using the tractor/gravity system) could make a fair pirate raider of a non Orion alternative.

anyway, just a thought.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 12:51 am: Edit

There might be any number of small ships that could be done for SFB but (due to licensing) none of them will come from the game Traveler.

Traveler is a different game. Those ships are not SFB...

Alright, now that's out of the way...go ahead and talk small craft for SFB.

Get it?

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 01:40 am: Edit

The SFB Free Trader and the TRAVELLER Free Trader are two different designs. They share a name, and they kinda fill the same role, but beyond that they have nothing to do with each other. Sorry.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 03:12 am: Edit

The Traveller Broadsword class fits into the same niche as the Free Trooper does in the SFU. (Okay, ground assault PFs in private hands are closer in size.) Each of the 3 decks of the Free Trooper has about as much room as the entire Broadsword. (68 by 50 meters versus the Broadsword's roughly 25 meter diameter decks less the fuel tankage and external craft.) Doing a literal conversion yields rather out of place ships as Traveller includes more smaller weapons on considerably smaller hulls. Plus transporters ease the requirements for small craft.

Will any one bother to play a considerably shrunken variant of a free trooper? These concepts do seem to be hitting the limits of the SFB game system.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit

The small ships niche in SFB's does have a little room to add some new entries in.

It would be nice if occasionally a non standard hull form could be encountered occasionally (this would be esoecially nice for RPG'ers.

with 99.999 percent of the encounters being some variation of 6 ships, (large or small merchant frieghter, with standard or ,military engines), a Free trader (or some variant of the basic hull), the APT , FDX, Orion Slaver or the Seeker & Skiffs talked about earlier.... even with the TAc Intel rules, at a certain point people will eventually figure out what they are dealing with.


In the Federation particularly, where not all planets are forced to joun the UFP... you might see some "home grown" starships that are at the lower end of the performance spectrum.... such as the Broadsword example richard referenced.

I would not expect them to totally replace the existing types... but I could see some situations where a faster hull, or better shielding or even nimble ability might be desireable in a commercial hull.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 01:53 am: Edit

Not very much, in terms of boxes. A difference of several boxes on a non-combat hull just does not seem to be worth the effort of tracking. I expect that each SSD probably shows the average of a wide range of hulls which could be added to the RPG but have no purpose in the SFB side of the issue. Except perhaps breaking certain scenarios built around certain damage levels causing some amount of cargo destruction.

I find Traveller's big collection of hulls could probably be condensed considerably since many are slightly tweaked variations on a stock concept. How many different versions showing a different position of the bridge on the deckplans would one need for the free trader? I recall seeing about a dozen.

By Bennett Eugene Snyder (Planner) on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit

Something I've been wondering about is what about those systems whose inhabitants are either larger or smaller than "human standard" (i.e. 6' to 6'2")? Would we see a cruiser that was larger or smaller? For reference, picture the Hallmark Enterprise next to the Zocchi Enterprise, with the Zocchi as normal. Would we build ships that fit their needs, or have their ships brought into Starfleet?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit

All star fleet ships have mixed crews, so people of non-normal stature would just "make do" in existing ships. Each member planet has its own ships (which form the "national guard") and those might well be sized for the races.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Given that Each member planet has a National Guard... is it too far a reach that some might have "Subsidised Merchants"?

The Traveler 200 ton Subsidised Merchant was (IIRC) 200 tons and had 2 hard points and counted as part of the systems defense.

You wouldnt see any of those critters more than 1-2 systems away from home base... but you might come across any number of different worlds that operated such ships until they could develope thier own merchant marine.

I doubt if you would see such things anywhere else but the Federation ... although the Vuldar might have something that comes close.

Didnt the Cygnians operate a class of merchant hulls that they converted into destroyers and cruisers that eventually formed the cygnian National Guard?

I wouldnt think all races would copy the Cygnian ships... perhaps some alternatives might be inorder.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Rather than 'a system or two" it might be better to say that normally, they only operated within their home strategic hex.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Very Good point.

I should have made it more clear.

Even with that clarification, many of the "early" merchants that new members develop are going to be less effective than the Early small Frieghter (1/3 move cost, 2 warp engine boxes (IIRC... might have 3) and no chance against orion pirates under most circumstances.

An alternative would be smaller hulls with less cargo that "are not worth the trouble" to a Orion to mess with.

particularly if they have a drone rack 1 phaser 2 (or maybe just 2 phaser 3's) and less than 25 cargo boxes....

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 12:06 am: Edit

Don't forget shuttlecraft used as merchant ships -- ala "Harry Mudd". They are a valid choice for short-haul work.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 01:35 pm: Edit

One point on the initial message. Those seven "hardpoints" mentioned are much more comparible with bay weapons, not turret weapons. Consequently, the Pol in your example would be 7000 dtons, not 800 dtons.

But of course that comparison doesn't work, since we know the Pol has to be around 1500-2000 dtons. (BTW, a Pol deckplan and GPD stats would be a good thing ...)

Also, who knows what will happen to the sizes with G4?

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 02:44 pm: Edit

SFB is a tactical space-combat game, not an RPG simulation engine; the differences between individual small non-combat ships blur out once you convert them to an SFB SSD. If you _are_ trying to use SFB rules to resolve an RPG situation, it's probably better to just modify one of the stock SSDs as you see fit (such a situation cannot be balanced in S8.0 terms, but it doesn't need to be.)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Michael Powers:

Are you opposed to the various "levels" of the Star Fleet Universe being compatible?

Sounds like it...

A lot of work has been done so that the various parts of the SFU "play nice" with each other.

That means that from F&E strategic POV thru to the Tactical level at Star Fleet Battles down to encounters in PD GURPS, when a player sees a Fed CA... The relative strengths weaknesses and characteristics are known and (it is to be hoped) portrayed correctly.

One thing that IMO will not happen, is ADB and SFU stopping growth and development (short of going out of business, that is) on new products.

For the business to develop and the hobby to grow, new products and materials will continue to be produced and sold.

Some customers will want the option to have "their" ship participate in combat situations. If SVC and ADB decide to fill the demand, then the game will address the issue.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Mike, any further work on ship stats is on indefinite hold. All of the existing stats are written per SPACE3 which is incompatible with GPD4 and G4e.

As far as I know, SPACE4 isn't even on the schedule at SJ Games, and we can't do anything until that comes out.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 08:27 pm: Edit

>Are you opposed to the various "levels" of the
> Star Fleet Universe being compatible?
>Sounds like it...

Gosh, that's a nice way to start a post! I'm glad to see that you're so interested in being civil.

I'm suggesting that it might not be necessary for ADB to official design, playtest, balance, and publish what amounts to eight zillion variations on the Armed Priority Transport. I don't think that it's useful or necessary to directly transfer designs from Traveler into the SFU. The concept of a small short-ranged merchant ship equipped with a few guns and capable of being pressed into service for defense already exists, it's called the Armed Freighter.

My point is that the super-small ship designs don't really work at the SFB game scale, because you start getting into questions like "how much stuff is actually _in_ a Hull box", which SFB doesn't have the ability to answer. If a gaming group needs an SFB design for themselves, they'd do just as well to cobble something together from existing pieces; say, a Small Armed Freighter with skids and a ducktail would have pretty much all the capabilities a group might need. Alternatively, the Security Skiff would be a good basis for an adventurers' ship.

By Ian Whitchurch (Ian_Whitchurch) on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Mike West,

Ahem. As a long-time employee of Famile Spofulam, and connected with the Jet Bike (1), the EmPaW (2) and the Barbie's Own Battledress line of consumer products (3), I must correct certain impressions you may have of the POL. BTW, Ditzie is currently sleeping off the New Year celebrations, so you all get to miss out on Ditzie-speak.

Firstly, the photon is clearly a spinal-mounted weapon, what with the fixed FA arc and everything. A spinal mount doesnt take up a hardpoint under FFS2.

Secondly, the forward phasers are clearly barbettes, and the 360 degree weapons a pair of small circa 250 MJ turreted phasers and one large turreted phaser in the 500 MJ range.

We can certainly build such a ship in 800 dtons under FFS2. How many gees acceleration would Sir be requesting ? I understand that Sir would be unlikely to want the fourteen gees of a J-class racing yacht (4), as Sir looks unwilling to be subjected to the eleven subjective gees of a J-class under full acceleration.

We would be more than happy to submit a design for your perusal, at some point in the future.

Ian Whitchurch
Executive Assistant to Ms Ditzammer Spofulam
Vice Preside, High Energy Systems, Famile Spofulam


(1) Think of it as the personal transport version of the Me-262, running on hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.

(2) The Elephant-Mounted Particle Accelerator Weapon, a good seller on certain less developed worlds in the early years of the Third Imperium.

(3) A Barbie-scale Particel Accelerator pistol, capable of doing 200 joules of damage at 30 cm in a standard atmosphere.

(4) One of Roderick Elliot's ... a pure speed racing yacht, capable of outrunning not merely the Imperial Navy's Fast Fighters, but also the missiles fired by these fighters. Technically illegal under FFS2, but can be made legal with the addition of a small TL15 fusion 'starter motor' for the Heplar drives. Pulls something like 17 gees when operating on fumes ... the fastest thing in the known galaxy.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Space 4e, based on what co-author Jon F. Zeigler has said on the SJ Games MOO, is nearing completion of a submission draft, somewhat later than the original deadline.

Obviously, with the draft not completed/accepted, any speculation as to when it will appear is tenative and highly subject to error, especially from someone (like myself) with no insider knowledge. But prospects would seem to be good that it will show up late this year or early next.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 03:08 am: Edit

Ian: Well, you are using FFS2 which explains a lot. Those design sequences permit many a design wrong for Traveller and any other universe.

Now, the GPD conversion for Traveller ships (which exaggerates greatly the effectiveness of Traveller weapons) rates each laser turret as roughly equivalent to a phaser-3. So you would need to design a ship with 2 405MJ and 3 Gigajoule FTL beam weapons. Plus the photon and missile launch bays and the probe launcher which really does translate to a similar bay weapon. Add the SFU requirement for roughly 6 months of operation without needing resupply. That will be very difficult to squeeze into an 800 ton hull, even if one happily has the benefits of ignoring jump tankage.

These two universes differ so much in base assumptions that converting between the two can yield very wacky results. Best way to use Traveller is to modify deckplans of close to the correct physical size but ignore the various Traveller stats.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 03:32 am: Edit

SEE: that's good news! Too late for GPD4, though.

On the other hand, I just finished an article for GPD4 that defines how shuttlecraft can be customized for civilian merchant service. I fully expect that GMs will use it to design their own small craft, unless the players do it first!

Example: a quad-sized shuttlecraft has a base cost of $1,250,000 and can hold 100 cargo points of stuff. Railroad-style bunk beads stacked 2-high consume 10 cargo points and costs $2000.

By Ian Whitchurch (Ian_Whitchurch) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 04:00 am: Edit

Richard,

But design wrongs under FFS2 are just so right. "Feel the power of a fully armed and operational Lab Ship".

Lessee, 450 MJ is roughly a standard FS high-powered shipboard laser (250 MJ just doesnt give enough punch). We can cram em into a standard turret, if the accumulator is in the main hull.

If we drop the 50 MJ/TL limit on lasers, then it isnt too hard to build phaser-1s (note that SFU designers agree with the FS design philosophy of 'dont overpower the ship - make em walk or chew gum, but not both').

If you make us use PAWs, then I guess we'll be need to be using the FS-standard 3m PAWs for phaser-1s, and something a bit bigger for the pho-torp.

The drone rack is a missile turret, natch. The ADDs are Little Bubba-style kinetic kill pellets.

I see the probe launcher as being a very small craft launcher ...

But yeah, I think I can build that under FFS2, in 800 dtons.

Ian Whitchurch

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Gary,

I do have one request when you redo all of the ship stats: Please make the standard shuttle bigger. Making it only 3 spaces is just way, way too small. It needs to be comparible to the fighters, which are pretty much all 30 spaces. I would think 20 spaces would work out pretty well.

(For those reading 1 space = 1 dton. Well, not exactly, but close enough to not worry about the discrepancy.)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Ian,

I don't have FFS2 (or FFS1 for that matter), and pretty much exclusively rely on HG2 or GT:SS. Under either system photons, phasers, and drones (missles) are most comparible to bay systems.

I still have no idea whether I will bother to update to G4, though.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Mike, check your email.