Archive through January 08, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
Processed:
Traveler/GURPS standard ship designs for SFB:
Archive through January 08, 2005
Dkass --
R8 has purpose-built passenger liners (R1.63 and R1.64).
Loren,
As Steven has pointed out, you are indeed correct about the relative scales between F&E and Traveller (all versions). All of Traveller's "Charted Space" pretty much fits into a single F&E hex.
And, as D Lang points out, each hex in F&E holds thousands and thousands of stars in each hex, with presumably hundreds (if not thousands) of populated worlds. The worlds shown on the map are just those that are truly exceptional. (Even the "minor" worlds are exceptional.)
These unseen worlds are the reason that F&E provinces produce economic points even though there is "nothing" in them.
Also, keep in mind that the basic underpinnings of Traveller and the SFU (SFB/F&E/GPD) are stunningly different. The baseline, fundamental assumptions just don't mesh. Consequently, many of the ships seen in Traveller just don't make any sense in the SFU. (Having been involved with both games for longer than I wish to admit, I can go into detail, but assume it would just bore everyone to tears.)
As a conclusion, I would say that the GPD crew has already looked to G:T for inspiration, and applied things that made sense. That is why the skiffs and courier were introduced into the game.
Besides which, how much "variability" do you want?
The courier and skiff both have NWO boxes to allow "customization". Freighters have lots of variations, both "unofficial" from the CL article, and official in the myriad civilian pods available for use. And even PFs cover the options; the four cargo boxes on a PFC are NWO boxes for all intents and purposes.
And I finish on the ship you are really looking for: the free trader. It already has many different forms, but even if they don't give you what you want, just swap cargo out. The color text is pretty clear that half (if not all) of the cargo boxes on the free trader are NWO boxes in all but name.
for the record note that NWO does not mean that the players can just swap from one component to another, they mean that many different ships were built and if you look hard enough you can find every possible permutation of the options, and that a major overhaul can reconfigure the boxes from one type to another
so you don't have to worry about your players having too flexible a ship on their hands.
I am forced to concede the point about the stunningly different natures of the Traveler vs SFU games.
From a game playing perspective, there are some nice elements in traveler that have no corresponding game function in SFU.
For just one example, Traveler star ships have a mechanism for poor maintainence, or contaminated fuel. it has a game function in that contaminated fuel is cheaper than refined fuels so it impacts players economic decisions.
It also impacts the game to the extent that using unrefined fuel or a starship that has not had proper maintainece could result in the dreaded "mis-jump". So far as I know, there is no possibility of such an event happening in SFU...but the role playing repercussions of finding one self accidently parsecs away from the intended destination, low on fuel with a jump drive that may not be reliable, even if fuel could be found, can complicate any gaming situation.
Jeff,
Those problems are all something a GM in a role playing situation could handle.
Offer to sell the players cheaper dilithium crystals, plasma conduit patch kits, etc - and you can pretty much have them fail whenever the adventure requires...
Tony, true.
The Traveler system spelled it out and integrated into the normal adventure...and did it in a way that players could asses for them selves the risk/benefit choices in the decisions.
in SFU the reliablilty is assumed.
unless otherwise stated, things work. In traveler, when one makes a jump...one is never quite certain that one will arrive at the destination one hopes to get to... in SFU, under normal conditions, the question does not normally come up as an issue.
We're starting to run into one of the central questions of the RPG: "Does the GM actually M the G, or just roll dice for the NPC?" I don't mind assuming that the warp drive will always work properly and allowing the GM to break it when it's convenient for the story (and, for that matter, everything we've seen in the SFU and its original material suggests that having the warp drive break is a rare event.)
On the other hand, in Traveller you can die during chargen, so there you are.
Very interesting, but If we could get back to the matter at hand...
... which happens to be centered on small ship designs for SFB (ostensibly patterned on Traveler ships)... although reflecting on many of the comments above perhaps the traveler tie in is not a very good one to have chosen...
I would like to propose a SFB version of the type C cruiser:
Designed by the firm Solar Turbomecha company (the same company that proposed the Federation Police Frigate, (PFF) see rule R2.A4, Captains Log #24)) in year 178 proposed a commercial high capacity merchant ship using the well proven 30K MW engines of the Federation Police Cutter.
The hull, while being a new design, shared some of the basic design elements of the PFF, including the use of 3 of the 30K MW warp engines. instead of overgunning the basic POL design as the PFF was said to have done, the Type C merchant cruiser added a 25 box cargo bay to what amounted to a POL+ frame.
The resulting ship has a movement cost of 1/2, no nimble status, and is capable of warship accelleration. the Photon is replaced by a type A drone rack, with the same number of reloads available to the G rack.
Systems available to the Type C merchant cruiser is therefore:
27 Cargo boxes (in two bays, one of 25 boxes and the original cargo bay of 2 SSD boxes.)
1 A rack (replaces photon)
2 Phaser 1's (1 FA + L, 1 FA + R)
2 Bridge
2 LAB
1 Probe
1 AUX
1 TRAC
2 TRAN
2 BATT
2 PHASER 3's
2 Shuttle
1 EM BR
1 G rack Drone
1 APR/(AWR)
1 360 degre Phaser 1
5 center Hull
2 IMPULSE
Shield#1 18 boxes
Shield #2 and #6 14 box shields
Shield #3 and #5 12 box shields
Shield #4 12 box shield
5 Sensor boxes
5 scanner boxes
4 Dam CON boxes
4 Excess Damage
Ship is able to maintain speed 31 tactically using warp and 1 impulse.
Crew:
6 CU
2 BP
5 probes
Estimated BPV = 50/40 (split economic/combat)
Ship would not be Federation operated but sold to commercial operators for use in off F&E Map operations or operations in or near the various neutral zones around the Federation.
The ship would be capable of the same strategic speeds (dash speeds) that the PFF was capable of (since the engines were neither "hot warp" nor X technology)... for purposes of Tactical intelligence (rule D17.0) the ships is indistiguishable from the vanila Fed DD. (15 warp power on a 1/2 movement cost hull).
The hope of Solar Turbomecha board of directors was that as demand for the Police Cutter (and the PFF) declined, commercial orders for the MC-C (merchant cruiser, type 'C') would increase thus allowing production of the 30K MS engines to continue.
In the actual event, the operating costs of the Type C Merchant cruiser were more than that of a large Freighter, but the increased tactical speed, and the additional weapons improved its ability to survive. the MC-C could survive encounters that the standard (or even armed version) large freighter would be at a disadvantage in (to say nothing of the chances that a small freighter would have in the same situation.)
Partial translation of the data files seems to indicate that some MC-C's on Government contracts were infact allowed to have the original photon in place of the Type A drone Rack. After the end of the General war, some independent MC-C's contracted out to Klingon firms...and it appears that both sides of the Romulan Civil War seem to have somehow acquired MC-C's.
Jeff: You plan on adding a cargo pod to a police cruiser with no change in movement cost. Shades of the Commander's edition PolCV. That results in a ship far more capable than the various frigate converted cargo vessels (including FCRs). Way, way too cheap.
Richard Wells, 3 x 5 point warp engines is 15 points of warp power, and it calls for a movement cost of 1/2.
Unless I am mistaken, I think the POL has only 2 x 5 point warp engines (total 10 warp) and a Move cost of 1/3.
The Economic estimated cost of 50 BPV is 25% more than the original 40 BPV cost of the POL.
I was thinking that a large freighter (with 2 x 25 box cargo pods) also has a move cost of 1/2.
I admit that it may be pushing the margin a bit, but I don't see it in the same light as the POLCV.
Oh wait.
The POL+ is 48 BPV, not 40.
Sorry -
Please amend the estimated BPV to read "60 / 48 split Economic/ combat BPV"
The 50% increase in warp power and 25 boxes of cargo (padding) should have some affect, this is just a first WAG at it.
The Ph-1 would be replaced with ph-2 or ph-3 (probably half and half or so).
Jeff: Oops, missed the third engine. Still seems very cheap for the capabilities. BPV should also go up by 21/15 for pod plus an adjustment for the extra power afforded by the warp engine (a slight increase as the increase movement cost reduces some of the value). Economic BPV should be closer to 90 with combat being lower maybe 45. (Or possibly higher, the comparable ship is the DWT with less cargo but more other systems.)
Might I suggest trying to design for the RPG directly.
David Kass, yeah, I should have thought of that... merchants dont have time to maintain weapons systems...they want to make more money!
I think the change of the phaser 1's to phaser 2's is reasonable and proper. not sure about the proper mix, though. Since the ship is using the POL+ as the base inspiration, it already has 2 phaser 3's... so the discussion would be 2/3 or 3/2.... and there just is not a lot of difference between the damage generation ability of a single phaser 2/3 swap.
Richard Wells, I could have made it more clear. And I readily concede the BPV issue, a WAG.
having a split Economic / Combat BPV doesnt bother me all that much. the value is what the value is, and I suspect that if the proposal gets to SVC's review, he will make the call as he sees it.
Still, for what its worth, a 90/45 BPV seems a little high.
As to designing directly for the RPG directly, please see the discussion above. the General consensis appears to be that the exsiting SSD's (with minor changes of 1 or 2 boxes to various systems) is already represented in the game and well within the ability of a GM's mandate. (particularly if the CDH is used).
This is intended to fill the same role that the Traveler Type C merchant Cruiser had in the RPG, and was one of the types of ships that players could aspire to own and operate.
At the same time a design such as this MC-C could be operated by a government or NGO for various tasks ranging from commercial shipping to research to limitied military tasks that do not justify a formal intervention by a service such as Star Fleet or the Police forces.
(one example is contract security like companies are performing in Iraq and afganistan as part of the war on terror.)
Jeff: I mean go directly to the RPG. Draw up new deck plans and adventures for given ships not see what you can shoehorn into SFB.
Richard, Its already been done.
There are already plans for the Type C cruiser in Traveler, it was one of the basic ships introduced into the game , first edition RPG.
Judges Guild printed deck plans 20 years ago.
I don't recall if FASA did a set or not, (simply just don't remember.)
point is, the style of ship pre-exists in the Traveler system.
The proposal here, is a SFB equilvilent to fill the same catagory (or niche, as it were).
Now, if you feel (like several other people who have participated in this thread) that this proposal is unneeded, then fine.
But I felt that existing SFB's ships (as represented by the published SSD's) do not exactly represent all of the types of ships available to the Traveler/GURPS system.
Jeff: I mean design for GURPS:PD. Not every Traveller design works in all official Traveller universes. The SFU differs all the various OTUs so some ships just can't port over. SFB is sufficiently granular that all the entrants in a THUDD contest would yield a single SSD.
But in PD, there is room to design specialty ships and adventures to create the SFU equivalent to the Zhodani core expeditions. These ships may be indentical to existing SFU ships in SFB but have a flavor their own. I always found it odd that the long established Traveller universe included more support for deep explorations into the unknown than any version of Trek inspired RPG.
Jeff, I am not sure anymore what you're after. Are you looking for an official SSD for the C-merchant, or what?
Richard: Sorry. Guess we were talking past each other!
Both Richard and Gary: I was trying to convey that a selection of specialty designs could fit into the SFU.
Not that I insist that any one or other specific design must be "official" (I dont have that kind of power, 
!)
Just trying to demonstrate (and pursuade, possibly) that the C cruiser (sfb version, anyway) could provide a little more dimension than just the existing list of ships (the small and large freighters, the FT or the APT etc) provides.
What I am really after was a discussion on expanding the number of commercial ship design SSD's in SFB for small ships.
Since I appear to be the only one interested, then perhaps I am wrong to want more choices.
Again, I am not trying to upset anyone... just wanted to encourage discussion.
Jeff: At this point I would suggest you create several designs and post them. Show us some SSD's and maybe the GURPS rules to go with. Perhaps a hull sketch?
Jeff;
I haven’t read this whole thread and I admit I am a little lost as to what you are aiming for, also I don't know what a "C cruiser" from traveler is..
And if I am off the tracks here please forgive my ramblings... but you wanted a discussion
As I understand it the design concept is that the SFB SSD represents the tactical representation of a ship, so an SFB freighter SSD's can represent if needed many different ships. examples are
1) The Nostromo (sp?) from Alien
2) Any number of vessels in the Battlestar Galactica ragtag fleet
3) The ore carrier that the M5 computer destroyed in TOS.
4) Or a never before seen gull winged cargo vessel with many individual cargo holds in the wings that your G:PD characters are running through the hallways opening doors. Though the SSD does not look like a big gull wing vessel, it is essentially a freighter with a command section, engines and cargo. Minimally armed and shielded. Though the SSD won’t be as esthetically pleasing as a G:PD floor plan, it does the job of representing the vessel for SFB combat.
I think your best is to list out the functionality/size/capabilities you are looking for and then to see what SSD can represent that, and if you can’t find one, then have fun making a new one.
I mean if you want a vessel that can carry cargo and move like a warship, pick an Orion, add the weapons desired.
Or for smaller vessels the FT, or there are skiffs, yachts, shuttle (lots and lots of shuttles) or maybe just a freighter with a smaller cargo hold, mark off some the boxes on the SSD.
I hope I didn’t take your discussion off course, I just could not see where you wanted to go.
I have exchanged Emails with Mike Raper, He said he would try to put an SSD together for this proposal (the Type C merchant cruiser.)
Loren, I don't know how to post a hull sketch on the BBS. (and my skills as an artist are (to put it mildly) not good).
Well have to wait for Mike to help on the SSD.
Traveller ships don't translate into SFB/GPD. The biggest reason is because of the engines and fuel requirements. In GURPS Traveller, it takes 10% of the ship's hull volume for each parsec of distance it will "jump" (the Traveller means of FTL). For the type C, that means 30% of its volume is consumed with the fuel its jump (FTL) drive requires to operate.
Also, you do realize that the type C ship is not a merchant, right? It is a (poor) troop transport ship. As for what it looks like, it is a big ball. Here is a good shot of one:
http://visionforgestudios.com/jesse/traveller/broadsword.htm
BTW, here is a great pick of a Traveller free trader ship:
http://visionforgestudios.com/jesse/traveller/ft_orbit_3.htm
(The main URL for the picture gallery these are taken from is here:
http://visionforgestudios.com/jesse/traveller/traveller_gallery.htm )
I have found a link that shows a modified Type C cruiser from Traveler 1st edition.
it is:
http://members.aol.com/gypsycomet/Jupiter.html
(exerpt from site
"JUPITER class Mercenary Cruiser
A variation on the venerable Type-C, the Jupiter is more lightly armored and carries fewer missiles and fewer troops, but greatly increases the available mission space for vehicles or other cargo. The Jupiter is also streamlined to airframe specs, allowing the ship itself to affect conflicts on the ground.
This design is based somewhat on the original Book 2 version of the Type-C, which carried pinnaces instead of cutters. The original design also differentiated between ship's troops and other passengers, such as scientists, that the ship might carry. All "passenger" space may be used as troops space or passenger space as missions require. Converting the troops to non-military passengers also reduces the Command needs to 1 person..."
If any one wants to see an example of what I am talking about...
Jim Cummins:
Thank you for participating!
The idea here is (to put it bluntly), an alternative small ship (estimated size class 4) that has less than 70 personnel (actually 6 crew units including 2 boarding parties) that could be used in a RPG situatin Ala GURPS PD.
The Type C was chosen as an example simply because of the few similarities (most likely visable only to me, I guess!) in weapons, manning, and small boats. (in the case of the link posted above, the Jupiter class variant of the type C cruiser has 2 pinnances onboard instead of 2 cutters...(neither of which are the same thing as SFB shuttles).
In terms of the RPG aspect, a Type C variant would be superior to existing SFB types in terms of speed, cargo capacity, weapons and shielding when compared to the Free trader, large and small frieghters, Fed Express and APT.
The Type C merchant cruiser is not "just a couple boxes different than the small frieghter."