This looks really really cool, I suppose we can't talk you into putting one of these on this years schedule:-)

How are variants going to work for example, will there be a separate entry for ships like the D7W and D7V?? Will there be a book that covers fighters and other shuttles??

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

These are all good questions but the answers have yet to be decided.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Hey, any one notice that, whith SVC second posted page, these books will double as a super cool rerelease of the Ship Names Registry?!!

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

*drool*

Ship names, art, all those stats...

OMFG, this book is like a dream come true...

(Second only to the master rulebook, of course. Wellll....actually.....this IS a lot cooler...

Not NEARLY as useful....but DA-MN cool....)

By Jay K Gustafson (Jay) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Here's data on FEDERATION A-10 FIGHTER.

CREW 2

2000 TON COMBINED IMPULSE DRIVE

LANDING CAPABILTY YES

TYPE OF SHIP FIGHTER SHUTTLE

TAKES UP TWO SHUTTLE BAYS ON FEDERATION STARSHIP.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Jay: The A-10 take up one bay. The A-20 takes up two.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Well, fiction will get a little tighter. It will be indespencable for writers.

By Jay K Gustafson (Jay) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Sorry.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit

More thoughts...

I like how you worked the shield numbers into it! Heh!

Size would be good to include, too. "Class 2 Starship", "Class 3 Starship", etc.

I also LOVE the reference to the FTL sensors. Which gets me thinking....Room to squeeze in the missile control sensors, to? (Each race has at least 3 we know of - the 1/2-sensor control channels, equal-to-sensor control channels, and double-sensor control channels).

Also...EW packages? (about 7 models we know of for each race - EY-era ships with max EW of 4, GW-era ships with max EW of 6, X-era ships with free EW points, PF EW suites, fighter EW suites, special sensors, and EW pods)

For all of these, I think the way the USNI handles it is best. Just have a section on the ship stats dedicated to 'sensors' that lists each sensor system by name (Klayhmohr-665 FTL sensors, Kintata-M EW suite, Kodpat/Raised Sword missile control system, etc).

Then, in the back of the book, have a section dedicated to EW platforms. Very short, maybe only 3 or 4 pages total. List each EW platform by name that is in the book, give a brief couple lines of its known stats and a description. That way, you don't have to put that info in the ship descriptions, and it adds cool flavor text and game-relevant material. (EX: "Kintata-M, Total Max EW output: 6 GW, Modes: 28, Description: The Kintata-M suite is the standard EW package in the Klingon Empire from 2330 - 2388 for Class-3 Starships. Capable of 28 distinct modes ranging from full power ECM to full power ECCM to a number of lower power modes, it provided protection and detection for an entire generation of Klingon warships.")

Since the SFB rules for each generation of ship is rather homogenized (as if the USNI 'data' for modern sensors ISN'T), you could add variety to the sensor descriptions and ship 'sensor' sections by including information more important to GURPS players than SFB players. IE., deep space probing capabilities, ability to survey planet's surface, etc. For stats for such thing, you could note time-on-station required for a 'full planetary scan' or something.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Oh, RE: my above post...

This 'EW' section of the book would be a GREAT place to throw in some of Jane's classic accuracy.

WE know, being SFB players, that all ships of the same era (barring scouts) have the same EW ability.

But..."Leanna's Fighting Starships" might not...

IE., the D7 might have a Kintata-M EW suite, say the B10 had a Kozbezie-BR EW suite. In the EW section, the Kintata-M would be as above. As all EW in SFB is the same, the Kozbezie-BR *should* have the same description, also. But, c'mon, how boring is that? Instead, have it read: "Kozbezie-BR, Total Max EW output: Classified, Modes: Classified, Description: Present on the B10 and heavy warships, the details of this EW suite are largely unknown at present"

See? Adds flavor without breaking SFB data. A little repitition is okay (see the EW data of modern sensors in publicly available sources), but throwing a few 'unknowns' and 'classifieds' in sections where SFB rules already set fixed data adds variety. So, maybe the Kozbezie-BR is mostly classified, and the Kintata-M on Class-3 starships and Kurzhor-A&B on Class-4 starships have identical capabilities...just have those last 2 sections be near copies of each other. It's only 1 paragraph of data near the end of the book!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Jay, t'sawright.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 06:18 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

ability to survey planet's surface, etc. For stats for such thing, you could note time-on-station required for a 'full planetary scan' or something.

---

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 07:29 pm: Edit

David:

Missing the point, I think. My comment was to note some kind of difference (and I was just throwing out example) in the sensor system of a ship. IE., surely the D7 and F5 do not have identical sensor capabilities in every respect! Yet, in SFB, their sensor/EW/etc systems (when undamaged) are identical.

My point was merely that...perhaps...there is a lot more to the ship's sensors than what is presented in SFB. And those difference may be very different between classes, and could be expanded on in this guide.

General:

On the D7 page, it seems Steve is using 1500MW per point of power. That's fine, but the impulse engines don't seem to follow with this - the warp, battery, and APR does. Which is confusing. (Wasn't paying attention to this, but it's actually kinda cool my EW numbers mesh with it - figure some loss in conversion from ship's power to sensor waves and a 6,000 MW EW output could line up well with 9,000 MW power requirement)

David did bring up an interesting point in relation to labs. Any way to express different capabilities here 'in character' for this guide?

By Nikolaus Athas (Nycathis) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Quote:
David did bring up an interesting point in relation to labs. Any way to express different capabilities here 'in character' for this guide?

Sure just put in tech bable for different types of computer

ie The Constitution class had If I remember correctly a Daystrom Duotronic M-5 computer as the ships main computer - you can throw in RAM and Clock speeds to your hearts content.
It could be an interesting point that during war time the extensive research and investigating capacities of this computer was considered a needless luxury for size class 4 and NCLs and was degraded to the tactically equivalent M-5C series - which was optimised for combat roles (hence 4 box lab)

Insert Handwavium here

Another note could be that the M-5C series was equivalent to the Klingon K'lar IV which was the standard crusier base computing system.

etc
etc

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 12:13 am: Edit

Actually, I forgot about the computer. That should probably be added, to. It WAS a major plot point at least a couple times in the series.

But for labs...no, I think they are something different. Remember, they can act as control spaces in a pinch. And they get replaced with reactors. They are obviously related to physical rooms on the ship or something.

Meh, I dunno. Labs probably aren't important enough to worry about on this level of detail.

In any case, just throwing ideas 'out there' - it's a very exciting project, and easy to WAY jump the gun on it (as I fear I've treaded into)

By Marcin Radzikowski (Marcin) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:07 am: Edit

SVC,

Any objection to posting a single page from one of the FASA starship recognition books? I'm not sure if many people have these books and they would be a good indication of what has already been done.

No problem if there is a legal issues to posting such things on this BBS.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:31 am: Edit

Marcin,

I'm not Steve, but I'll tell you what he probably will. The FASA ship books are under copyright and you would be in violation of those rights. Also he couldn't possibly give you permission to do it since he doesn't have those rights. And he certainly doesn't want any legal troubles.

So whenever it comes to a question of copyright, generally assume the answer has to be no.

By Marcin Radzikowski (Marcin) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:37 am: Edit

I had to ask...

While the FASA starship combat component of the role playing game wasn't very good, they had some nice reference material. Some freaky ship designs as well...the one winged version of a D7 was funny...

By Jay K Gustafson (Jay) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 12:07 pm: Edit

How about the name of the type of warp engine used. like for example the MARK 5 WARP enging of the FEDERATION DESTROYER.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Marcin: As KJ said, we cannot give you permission to use FASA's (or Paramount's) copyrighted stuff.

By Scott Stohr (Scooter) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit

I’ve haven’t been following this topic as closely as I should, so please forgive me if this has been said before, but I have an idea about titles. Let say first, the examples posted by Steve and Mike both look excellent and I look forward to this product.

Okay, here is my idea. Title the books Leanna’s Fighting Starships: Ships of the Alliance Vol I. This would obviously have a Fed CA on the cover and spine to attract non-SFBers. Then there would be Leanna’s Fighting Starships: Ships of the Coalition Vol I. This would have a D-7 on the cover and spine. The beauty of this is the ships that don’t fit will then be in Alliance Vol II and Coalition Vol II etc. This leaves room to expand and will allow non-players to collect only the side they want. For instance, let’s say as a non-SFBer, I only like Fed ships. Then I purchase only the Alliance volumes but I still get a whole set (say 1-5) instead of skipping the ones that have races I’m not familiar with.

Now, you may ask about the Andros, Jindarians, Orions and Wyn. One of two things: either in their own volume Leanna’s Fighting Starships: Ships of the Non-Aligned Races or put them in under that heading in the Alliance and Coalition books. The idea that I like best is Leanna’s Fighting Starships: Ships of the Non-Aligned Races and General Units Vol I. This will allow for expansion and include pictures of bases and transports that are pretty much the same for each race. The problem is I don’t think this would be a big seller. The good part is, these units would not be taking up valuable space in the other books.

Okay, those are my thoughts. Any input is appreciated.

Scott

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Given what is supposed to get done this year (Two F&E products and maybe a third, three captain's logs, two SFB modules and maybe a third and forth, four or more swordfight books, four or more ace books, Federation Commander: Klingon Border, four miniatures fleet boxes and a dozen separate miniature ships, and two or three or four expansions for SFBF, Leanna's Fighting Starships isn't happening this year. As such, nothing has to be decided "now" and all suggestions are welcome (even if they don't get a response).

Ultimately, how things get packaged becomes a marketing decision. Scott doesn't realize the good point he made (a Fed book would sell better than a Gorn book, but two Fed+Gorn books would sell just as well as a Fed book). Whether we do things in this way remains to be seen and nothing has to be decided for at least 6-10 months.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit

I know this is early in the process, but I would like to make a plea on behalf of the "pagination" of the LFS books. (by that I mean the page numbering sequence.)

Instead of page # 1, 2, 3 ...etc) could an alternative system be used?

For example, use "groups" of numbers, each group have a different definition...such that the page number would appear as:

"AA BB CCC DD.DDDD E FF GG"

Where AA is the Leanna Fighting Ship book (or Volume) number.

BB is the Leanna Fighting ships page number.

CC is the YEAR IN SERVICE DATE for the Ship or product denoted on the page (to reflect diifferent things than just star ships, say shuttles or probes or whatever the ad is promotng)

DD.DDDD is The R rules section number from Star Fleet Battles.

E is the Ship Size Class.

FF is the Docking point value.

GGGG is the Lead ship tactical designation (for Federation that would be the NCC #, for Klingons the tactical # such as the first D6 might be D6-01 (or it might reflect refits such as D6B-01)

In this way, players who want to keep the books (mint condition) can do so and still have a conventional page number sequence, while other player who might wish to "burst" the books so as to sort the various pages into a comprehensive manual/binder can choose whichever method they want... and have a sequential number/document series already there.

Just like the R rule series basically reflects the order in which ships and non ship units entered the game (by publication date) while the NCC # series allows players to sort by "Ship Classes build order) and the Size class allows for other groupongs with the rule number giving a sub order hierarchy.

One nice thing about this proposal is the "Open Endedness" of it since the Year in Service # allows for new generations to be added and sufficeint space for earlier designs that have not yet been added to the game.

By Jay K Gustafson (Jay) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Will this be paperback, I like to put stuff in binders? or hardback?

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 07:06 pm: Edit


I'm thinking trade paperback (soft cover).

---