Jeff W: Can you explain why such a complicated and arcane system would be better than 1, 2, 3...?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

SVC-

I am guessing that if "Leannas's Fighting ships" is popular and sells well, you will have to cave in to the demands of doing an index that cross references the information in the books.

My suggestion - simply put- is to save yourself unnecessary labor -which will not result in additional sales- since indexes just are not great sellers...

But Steve...you have already done the work of the index!

Its in STAR FLEET BATTLES in the index and annexes...just print the ships and non ship units in LFS in the same order that you do with the "SFB -R- MODULES" and reference the rule number on the bottom of the pages would automatically make the indexes and annexes published for sfb compatible.

That way, when the demand comes (and it will!) for a comprehensive index and cross reference of LFS the only thing you will need to add is a 4 digit code in module G1 (or whatever product the next Master Ship Chart goes into) that 4 digit code could be a simple as LFS Vol #/page #.

A little forethought now will let you avoid a unrewarding and thankless job later...and all of the information for the "complicated and arcane system" is already printed on the SSD sheets for each ship.

And for all of the people like me and Jay K Gustafson who put things in binders will be very happy.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Jeff: I don't see it. The system you propose is much more complicated than it needs to be. If I go to an index and look up "Klingon D5" and it gives me a number like III-57 then I know it is volume III page 57 (and this could be on a master ship chart in G2). A and B are fine (and all we need). C just isn't important in an index and is just clutter. D, E, and F are game data that would be meaningless as part of a page number and would turn off non-gaming customers. C, D, E, and F would be in the datatables somewhere in the entry. G is something that belongs in the text, not the page number. There just is no advantage in your 17-digit page number idea. The idea of a page number is to be able to turn to a certain page in the book. Since the ship would not be printed in rule number order, having the rule number as part of the page number is just meaningless clutter. Give the rule number, you cannot find the ship without paging through every book looking at the bottom corner of the page, and you can look at the much bigger titles at the top far more easily.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 12:09 pm: Edit

SVC, if you are wanting to produce something similar to "Jane's Fighting Ships" I have access to such and can provide you with their format.

Also I'd recommend coming up with "NATO-standard" style naming conventions for the various weapons, electronics, etc. This lends a certain authentic feel to the book.

For example, the phaser-1 is still called that but it might be worded as "SP-1 General Offensive Phaser" in the book, the EW system could be called the "GS/SLQ-64 Grade 6 Electronic Warfare suite," etc. Federation navigational deflectors could be called "NICKEL DISH" where the Klingon could be called "DIVET CUP." These are just off the top of my head but you get the idea.

I can't wait to buy one. This should generate a lot of interest in the SFU.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 12:15 pm: Edit

RBN: Two things, SVC is heading out probably as I post, to the Los Vegas GAMA show so I would expect a response any time this week. (Who knows he might log in but then...)

Second: I'd be willing to lay down a Ben Franklin that SVC is "Janes" rich.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Steve-

I agree with every point you have made.

But for myself, I will probably buy 2 of each copy of LFS. one to keep intact, and the other to divide and sort into like catagories, using the game data for Year in Service and either size class or rule number order.

It won't kill me that the idea isn't accepted. but I felt it was worth presenting as several people have reported in this thread (and the one on the Monster rule book) that they use binders and integrate the SFB rules into one sequence of pages.

Just wanted to make ths suggestion now instead of just before you go to print.

Since it appears that I am the only one who feels this way, I'd like to formally withdraw the suggestion, and I thank you for the courtesy of your responses.

By Chad Carew (Blackhawkckc) on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 04:17 pm: Edit

I just noticed this product discussion and wanted to say, for what its worth, this would rock! I'd buy one.

By Jay K Gustafson (Jay) on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit

How much would a book like this cost.

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Cool!!

Would this be useable with PD?

Love the idea anyways.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit

The data is created with GURPS so it would be a usable resource book.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 08:26 am: Edit

For those of us for whom small children and other life events have made gaming more of a theoretical exercise than a real one, something like this really fills the bill. I can read it and dream.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 08:43 am: Edit

On EW suites.

There is no way that the B10's suite will be the same as an F5's despite the fact that they have the same in-game effect.

For the same amount of power, that B10 suite is distracting fire from a ship at least 4 times larger than an F5. It's ECCM capability is servicing a much larger number of weapons. It will be MUCH more versatile and expensive.

Now a D6/D7 suite *may* be the same. But I would at least check out sensor and scanner tracks of the two ships. If those are not also the same, then I would wonder - EW suites would be very stongly integrated with sensor and scanner systems.

Even with the same ship size and scanner/sensor tracks, EW suites can easily be different. Research will allow more reliable or smaller systems to do the same job. Certainly, one could envisage that a requirement for some of the D6 varients could be a new, smaller EW suite to make room for some of the extra systems. There could be a completely different suite for the mauler to boot anyway, as the mauler weapon would have different targeting requirements to just about anything else.

By Chris Bonaiuto (Epyon) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 09:40 am: Edit

I agree that different ships would have different EW suites. But I do think that the D7 suite would at least be an "upgraded" version of the D6. Just like I could see the original suite on the un-refitted Federation CA/CC, DD, FF, and Tug all being based off the same basic system, but with addition/subtractions for the differing numbers of weapons. and as the life of the hull goes forward, then slightly improved systems would become standard, not just in regard to sensors, but also weapons, sheilds, etc. The example that stands out in my mind would be the Fed CC vs. CB. Same hull, but more systems packed in. Smaller but more powerful sensor suite, smaller but more powerful sheild generators, etc to make room for more weapons. I could also see a CA+ or D7K laid down as new construction possibly having slightly newer or better electronics/sensors, etc than a CA+ or D7K that started life as an un-refitted CA or D7.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 09:48 am: Edit

The other thing is - were this all to be "true" , the SFB system is itself a simplification. It may be that the B10 "had" lousy ECM capabilities because of its size. This simply never crops up in SFB because it is a level of detail the game sytem (or the human brain) cannot cope with and is unecessary for the stimulation.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:00 am: Edit

Could be the EW systems is more spread out and vast on the B-10 unlike the F5.

Perhaps ECM doesn't work like chaff and size doesn't matter. ECM may obscure an area of several square kilometers that either a E4 or an B-10 fits in. The ECM has to be tuned to that ships individual signiture so ships cannot share each others EW by being in close proximity. I.e. Just because you say your F5 is flying very close to your B-10 doesn't mean you get to use the B-10 ECM.

ECCM is another matter and it depends on the target. That system would opperate the same.

HOWEVER, the electronic suites of the F5 and B10 are certainly different. The B10 has far more redundancy. Just look at the Sensor/Scanner tracks. So yes, I'd say the EW suite on those two ships (as well as others) would be different models. Some larger than others.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

I had this thought, if possible with the graphics.

Could you have a 1/2 page description of just what the conversions do to modify a ship?

By this, I mean a 'construction' diagram of just how the conversion takes place.

Example:
A D7->D7V conversion.

1st picture shows a side-view of a D7. It's deckhouse being removed.

2nd Picture shows the new deckhouse being added to the top.

(edit)
Example 2:
D6->D6U

1st picture showing just how much of the 'wings' are removed.

2nd picture of what is added to add the shuttle bays to the wings.

Like Lego assembly diagrams.

By Chris Bonaiuto (Epyon) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit

That would be cool! Or at the very least a comparison of the base hull and variants. All I have to say is that my mouth is watering at the thought of the entry for the BCJ!

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 01:04 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Could you have a 1/2 page description of just what the conversions do to modify a ship?

---

By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 01:49 pm: Edit

On ECM suites,
EW is tied to the sensor track directly. I would think that the more boxes on the sensor and scanner tracks the larger the EW system would be. Also labs have direct tie-ins to the system so that they can give better Tac intel, ID drones, gain science information, etc. I think that the # of lab boxes on the ship would also affect the size of the array.

By Chris Bonaiuto (Epyon) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Xander,

I have "Jane's fighting Aircraft of WW2" and "Jane's War at Sea", a rather large coffee table book that has some of the JFS entries in it. While I agree that this book should be based on Jane's and have the same feel, it should also have a few differences. I think Scott's idea would be nice, probably not practical, but nice. Since there are more variants per hull type in SFU than in the real navy, there should at least be some kind of lip service at least given to the variants. Variants don't have to have their own entries, but they should at least be mentioned in some kind of detail (ie, weapons/equipment differences, missions, etc).

By Mark Norman (Mnorman) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Remember, so variant also have significant hull shape changes, and should at least have a side-elevation line drawing.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 07:42 pm: Edit

My assumption/guess was that major variants would be given their own entry. By major, I mean ones that are either important in terms of the number of ships/usage or large hull shape changes. The rest don't really need much more than a mention that they exist...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit

If there is to be some much art I wonder is there could be a description of colors. Players could actually use it as an official painting guide (though certainly that would not the the intent of the book).

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

remember that a D7 is not an upgraded D6, it is the next generation of ship. A D6 is a early years cruiser upgraded as far as it can go with new technology, while a D7 can be upgraded all the way up to a D7X (the equivalent set of upgrades for it's hull)

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

A D6 is a true MY era cruiser. A D7 is also a true MY era cruiser (although it is a different one than the D6). A D6 and D7 have to be very similar. Although it is clear that a D6 cannot be converted directly to a D7--they can both be converted to the same variant (and/or the same ship, eg a D7 converted to a mauler results in the D6M); I suppose a D7 could be converted to a D6 if really desired.