---

Quote:

t 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.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 03:22 pm: Edit

David Kass;

Not everything is generic "one size fits all".

In the Real world, the function of a liquified Natural Gas tanker is marketedly similar to an oil tanker.

The two types of ships are not visually identical. the Liquidfied Natural Gas ship has several hemispheric tanks (look like giant beach balls) that protrude above the hull of the ship and are connected by a gantry way, piping and conduit.

there should be some variation (IMO) in SFB ships for those occasions where form demands a different design.

We have some of that already in the duck bill attachements to the standard hulls. There was the "tramp" freighter printed in one of the Captains logs that had combinations of cargo and passenger capacity, and we have it in the very large ore freighter.

One of the nice features of SFB is that it is not static... that as time goes on new ships and designs are added to the system.

While the CDH has some nice ideas, it is not perfect. and while the variations are minor overall, it does not address everything, (nor should it!)

The Deck plans of the G1 and the Free trader in Captains Logs are nice, and I hope to see more of them.

Just hoping that a little more attention can be directed at the smaller ships area, than just assuming that the standard small and large freighters are the beginning and the end of commercial ship design in SFB.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Oh, you guys are going to love the shuttlecraft section I wrote for GPD4!

Of course, after I submitted it to SVC, he hated it and tore it to shreds and rebuilt it. But to be fair, when he does that the result is usually better than the original.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 04:15 pm: Edit

In SFB, the LNG tanker and the oil tanker and a standard cargo ship (of similar size) would be identical--have the same SSD. This is the "resolution" of SFB. In SFU, just like in the real world, they are obviously different. Thus if one did deck plans for them, they would be different.

The duckbill is a change at the SFB resolution (it adds functionally significant items). Like wise the large ore carrier. Thus they have different SSDs.

My basic point is that a ship that just rearranges the boxes of an existing ship is not a new SSD, it is already represented by the existing SSD (and even if one adds/removes/changes marginally functional boxes it is still effectively the same SSD). So there is no need to do anything for SFB. For GPD, sure, the GM should describe it differently (and if using D17, it would show some differences). Likewise when GPD did a deckplan there would be different versions.

The existing SFB ships seem to cover the needed range of ships from an SFB perspective. There just isn't the need for 3000 different ships that are ultimately (from an SFB perspective) just targets. The corresponding SFB descriptions (and perhaps implied deckplans) are bare for GPD purposes, but that should be remedied in GPD, not in SFB. And, of course, in the mean time, any GM should already be adding the variety to their games as necessary.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 05:31 pm: Edit

And that is exactly the point I was attempting to make.

Rather than "just rearrange(s) the boxes of an existing ship" (please excuse the change of plural for the singular tense.) there are real substantive changes to SSD configuration that can (or should) alter the performance of vessels.

I would agree that just by changing the outline of the vessel but using the same types and numbers of SSD boxes does not constitute a "new" design.

but at some point, the change of the number of systems in a given hull will infact constitute a different level of performance, and that, IMO would constitute justification of a different SSD.

To put the issue in a different context, there is atleast (IMO) two standards involved.

the first could be characterized as "OFFICIAL-sanctioned by ADB" certified to "play nice" playtested designs... the second is "everything else" idea that home run campaigns can have anything the GM desires.

The first contributes to the success of ADB as a company, and ensures that the hobby survives, prospers and supports new products in the market place.

The second contributes nothing to ADB, and infact (if you pursue it to the logical extreme) creates a "Balkinization" process where local gaming groups pursue redically different forms of the game... and leads to less uniformity.

All I was trying to suggest is that there is a market for new SSD's "out there".

Your approach to enforce a GM/GPD only standard for small ships may make sense form SFB POV... (especially to those gamers on a fixed budget and who can't afford 3,000+ new SSD's in the game that repeat the same functions).

What your approach does not do, is allow ADB to sell new SSD's to those gamers that want and desire them.

By all means, if some one offers a SSD with a different hull outline but the same number of SSD boxes for each type that is found on an existing SSD, shoot it down with extreme predjudice.

But when new SSD's are offered to meet specific needs ( or perceived needs, even) then they should have a fair hearing.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Jeff, given that these ships have very few boxes to begin with, what are you proposing as the changes?

as was pointed out earlier changes of a box or two are probably not going to be worth a new SSD, just modify an existing one (see the CDH for costs, etc)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 09:53 pm: Edit

I was hoping this could be a forum to discuss exactly the kind of options outside of "a box or two" (that I agree would not be worth a new SSD).

For example, Earlier in the thread we started to discuss smaller ships that might only be local merchants "operate within one or two systems" was the phrase, IIRC.

possibly larger than Size Class 5 and less than a normal size class 4 hull. The kind of thing that a small colony might use to haul small cargos to the nearest Base station or minor planet to await transhipment to the cargo destination.

Lets call it a "pick up truck" for now that an Agriculture station (ground base) or a mining base might use since they dont generate enough merchandise to justify a small freighter route.

(for lack of better preparation) suppose its a third of the size of a small freighter... has 8 cargo boxes instead of 25. 2 warp engine box instead of 4, 1 impulse, and 1 apr (mostly because it doesnt have more warp power available). give it a 1/4 movement cost so it can do warp 2(tactical warp - a "dash speed pf warp 4 or 5 max). 1 bridge, no em br, or aux con. a transporter and a tractor. no weapons (who needs an armed pickup?!?) 5 box minimum shields and 1 crew unit (possibly 1 hull but it would be a common area, no cabins - strictly dormatory style.

nominal range would be 2,000 light years or less, just enough for intersteller service but not enough to go to the border of Fed space from earth and return in any kind of reasonable time.

such a small ship would be better operationally than the PF's and cargo shuttles already in the game, but not better than the existing small freighter APT or FED Express designs.

I could even see such a design become normal utility issue for colonies and small bases... but would be useless in a combat situation other than as target or lifeboat.

... and it would not be "just like a small freighter".

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:31 pm: Edit

this sounds like it's in the range of a yacht or large shuttle (shuttles go up to 4 cargo spaces, IIRC yachts go up a bit more from there (ant then cargo PF's pick up from there)

shuttles/yachts work reasonably well within a range of a couple systems, and really well within a single system

have you had a chance to see J2?

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:40 pm: Edit

I bet Jeff hasn't seen J2, or he would be salivating over a quad-sized transport shuttlecraft. They can carry 100 cargo points, and that is 2 regular cargo boxes (or 4 Orion).

Two or three of those would suit his stated requirements, and they would be a heck of a lot cheaper to operate than a ship.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Jeff: The problem is that some concepts break down in SFB. The ship you propose differs little from the largest cargo shuttles included in J2, except for the extra effort of filling out an EA form and some slight differences in cargo spaces. Unarmed ship that takes a single overloaded photon to demolish hardly seems worth the bother.

I think that if the difference in boxes is less than a phaser's natural variation in damage there just is no point in bothering with the SSD, especially with a mostly unarmed target. About the only time some of the designs would be chosen is when the weapons on the other side would be be overkill on the new designs but well balanced against the old designs reducing effectiveness of an attacker.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:51 am: Edit

Maybe SVC would allow us to "Build our Own" merchants and submit them. After basic approval put them up on the site for down load. There would be a set of simple guidlines and would amount to slight variations of the Free Trader with lots of different outlines. Maybe some would carry little pods and stuff. The whole point would be a free veriety of forms for fun. A short 100 word write up could fit on the SSD.

NONE of them would ever be "Official" units in the game system but would be "Approved for use in SFB and GPD." They would never be a F&E thing or appear in any of the annexes (as such any annex info would have to be the same as the Free Trader unless it appears on the SSD.)

Maybe there could be a template.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 08:31 am: Edit

David , Yes I have seen J2.

The design short coming of the cargo shuttles and the yacht is the limited range... (by that I mean limited strategic range that afflicts all fighters bombers and shuttles, and yes PF's.)

I meant what I posted, a ship design that had a limited ability to carry cargo/personnel at ranges and speeds approaching that of conventional ships.

The reason I suggest it in this thread is to fill the niche of subsidised merchant (in the Traveler system the 200 ton size) that colony worlds would
have available as an option over and above the cargo shuttles mentioned in J2.

One major disadvantage I see with the cargo shuttles is the range limits. that would literally force a colony to limit access to a small number of near by worlds or bases. to me, that equates to a monopoly situation where the seller of comodities (such as an agricuture colony or a mining colony) would have but one buyer for its products.

compare with real world farmers, they can sell to different grain elevators or put their live stock (hogs, cattle, sheep etc) for sale at auction in any number of potential markets by the expedient of driving to a different grain elevator, or auction site...and many farmers have access to several depending on how far they are willing to travel. they could deliver to a site that has rail road access, or to a river barge terminal, or even locations that are serviced by truck.

they have the ability to determine which location could yeild them the greatest price for the commodity.

Colony worlds restricted to the few markets that the slow and limited ranges available to cargo shuttles would be at the mercy of a single buyer of the products.

having the ability to sell to a larger number of potential buyers entitles the colony worlds to the full benefits of market economies.

and that is the reason I suggest a smaller cargo carrier would be available... and I respectfully point out to Gary Plana, that comparing a utility vessel as I have proposed to cargo shuttles is an apples to oranges type. The proper comparison should be longer ranged cargo carriers to longer ranged cargo carriers would be more appropriate... and this utility carrier to a small freighter comparison... IMO the pick up should be 1/2 to 1/3 the monthly operating cost of the small freighter.

Compare ADB in such a situtation.

If the paper used in printing captains logs is market price, then ADB could shop the best deal from a viariety of suppliers.

If ADB is forced into using a single supplier of the paper, then the price can be set at the suppliers whim, and ADB has the choice of paying the higher price or not printing the next installment of Captains Log.

Having the option to pick ones supplier is what allows the market to function.

(note:this assumes free markets exist in SFB universe, and that there is not a command / control centralized economy where the government sets the prices on all goods and services.)

By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 08:50 am: Edit

Jeff: Does the Free Trader not fit the bill at all?
(haven't got SSDs handy, can't remember how many cargo boxes it has.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:22 am: Edit

IIRC: Traveler is set in an area not much bigger than one F&E hex, right? If so, even those ships aren't designed for extreme deep space travel. Also, the Federation Capitol Complex is up to it's ears in major systems and colonies. So a Yatch based merchant would have lots of places to do business.

Also, there is the APT. This is smaller than the Free Trader and quite numerous. This probably fits the bill for Jeff. I suppose we need deck plans for this.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:28 am: Edit

Which was exactly my point from earlier in the thread. There's probably a dizzying array of designs which are all equivalent to the APT, when considered at SFB scale. There's no reason that two completely different sets of deck plans could not both be represented by the APT SSD.

So I guess what we're saying is that converting Traveller stuff to the SFU is fine, but that the differences between two conversions would appear in the GURPS product and not the SFB product.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 05:33 pm: Edit

We have the Free Trader deck plans. I think doing the APT would be good too. This gives Fed players a near PF sized unit to bebop around in.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Martin, IIRC the Free trader has 12 cargo boxes (in 2 x 6 box holds, left side, right side of the SSD.)

It also has more power (warp & impulse) than the small freighter has (the prime trader has still more warp infact), and a BPV to match.

And yes, the Free trader does come in to the catagory that I am talking about. as does the APT and the small freighter and the Skiff.

What all of the listed options do not do, IMO, is reflect all of the relevant options that could be reflected in SFB.

What I am suggesting is that there are opportunities for other designs that are operationally and systematically different that the existing options.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Jeff, what we are saying is that once you take the existing designs and run through all the permutations of changing/adding/deleting a few boxes from each of them we aren't seeing the huge gap in capabilities that you are saying you need to fill.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Loren, the Traveler large scale map that I am familiar with, shows the Imperium to occupy a quadrant of the galaxy... earth appears on the map as the former "solomani Rim" worlds... about center and 2 1/2 inches from the bottom... so at a guess the F&E map of the SFU would account for about 1/3 to 1/4 of the territory depicted.

since traveler ships are present in (to the best of my knowledge) in all areas of the map, they have greater range and system of bases than the SFU portrayal of the F&E map. This on ships that are clearly inferior and technologically behind the tech levels in SFU.

If you are talking about a lower scale of definition, Traveler also had provinces (rectangular shaped) that had a number of hexes that (each hex) represented individual planetary systems. ( I forget how many hexes in each province, 40? 50?) any way, in F&E a province would have 3 to 6 F&E hexes and represent an area of space 1,000 parsecs across, possibly larger.

In traveler, (at a guess), a province might be 15 light years wide, and 20 long. (IIRC, I beleve each traveler hex was 1 parsec, (call it 1.67 light years?!?) wide.

I am sure other people have more current data, and will be in a position to correct me, but at the moment, I do not believe that "Traveler is set in an area not much bigger than one F&E hex, right?" may not be the case.

(not wanting to start a fight over this...just trying to illustrate the point.)

I would agree that we need a deck plan for the APT.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 06:24 pm: Edit

It was my misunderstanding of the Traveler setting. An F&E hex is 500 parsecs so your explaination shows me that Traveler's setting is every bit as large as the SFU.

The thing with the Gunboat deck plans is that if you want to have a military independant group of PC's then you have to have a setting of post Y185 and in any case no earlier than Y180.

The APT is available in a far broader spectrume of eras.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 06:35 pm: Edit

David, Thank you, I did infact understand the point.

What has not been presented is the "run through all the permutations of changing/adding/deleting a few boxes from each" design to determine if a given design" does infact represent a material increase in abilities.

just pointing out that not every option has been examined yet.

and I suspect that there may be some nuggets of gold to be found in some of the GURPS/Traveler files that already exist.

By Ian Whitchurch (Ian_Whitchurch) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Almost by definition, a "colony" is in a monopoly situation ... it's a colony. Someone provided the capital to set it up. That someone wants to see a return on their investment.

I'd be very surprised if that someone allows unrestricted trade with "their" colony world, as that makes it too easy to skim off the profits.

OK, if the colonists themselves fronted the money for exploration, development and leasing, different story (*)

Remember, a corporation is a "command and control" economy, it just usually doesnt try to control the whole economy (although old-style mining operations with their company stores and company accomodations came close).

Our Heroes being that trade link to a colony is a good campaign setting btw, especially if Our Heroes are faced with being at or near the high tide of the Coalition offensive in the General War.

Ian Whitchurch

(*) One of the odd things to me is the low density of settlement in the SFU. Sure, not a lot of people would want to live inside a dome, but enough people want to "Live Free Or Die" that I can see little colonies just about everywhere, eking out a living from small pockets of valuable minerals.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Ian, one thing you don't realize is that for something to show up on the F&E map means that it's a major world my normal definitions

there are dozens to hundreds of additional settlements/planets/etc in each F&E hex that aren't significant enough to matter.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 08:24 pm: Edit

The map included with the first volume of Trav reprints is 16x8 sectors. A sector is four subsectors by four, and a subsector is about 8 parsecs wide and 10 high. That results in the big map having a width of around 500 parsecs and a height of 320 parsecs. This matches the scale printed on the left of the map, which shows a sector being 40 parsecs high. This map matches the G:Trav one as well.

So, the whole Traveller game map, from the far spinward end of the Aslan Hierate, to the far trailing edge of the Two Thousand Worlds, amounts to 160,000 square parsecs. On the other hand, an F&E hex is around 190,000 square parsecs.

The Third Imperium, in its entirety, would fit into an F&E hex about five times over.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 08:29 pm: Edit

Jeff, while I haven't quite done what you're looking for, I did spend a bunch of free time for a couple of months (back when GPD was being written) evaluating options for civilian ships. I didn't find any roles or ship designs (trying to fit between existing ships) that weren't adequately represented by the current SFB units (at the SFB scale). I think I threw out the matricies cross referencing the ship types and roles I designed for the effort. Thus my position.

The only borderline exception I can recall was an actual special purpose passenger liner (as opposed to the tramp steamer). I call it borderline since it can be represented by using a phaser armed freighter (or standard freigher with milspec drives) and adding a large, non-functioning (civilian) crew contingent. IMHO, it also wouldn't be a fun unit to have in an SFB game (too morbid).

The addition of skiffs and skids + ducktails helped cover a lot of ground. Also, there isn't much SFB functional difference between hull, cargo and barracks on these types of ships (its just a damage sponge with an economic cost). There are a few skids that are mentioned but don't have explicit SSDs (at least that I've seen) that might be worth adding.