Archive through February 17, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Prime Directive RPG: NEW KINDS OF RPG PRODUCTS:
GPD Small Craft:
Archive through February 17, 2004
What Steve said. I have no idea why I posted an explanation for something that doesn't exist (i.e. ships can disengage by acceleration near a planet).
Too much coffee......
I really am not keen to bring this up, but it really needs addressed.
We need to have some standard conversions for GURPS rules (be it Vehicles, Transhuman Space, or Space) to SFU stats for vehicle components.
Only about three people (from my loose count) know how to make ships that are consistent with the stats published. Also, Nick (?) said recently that the size factor used in some recent prints had no relation to GURPS stats, but were done to available space, which is fine until power generation potential and such are needed.
We could even have a set of stats wholly unique to the SFU, but we need to get some standard figures down. Without them it makes some RPGing more difficult and it makes development by other people near impossible.
My personal suggestion is (to fix the currently published material & provide for consistency in future development) that some factor of GURPS Vehicles be used, but that a +/- % allowance be available. Steve pays quite a lot of money to use the GURPS rules, let’s get his money's worth, David Pulver has done lots of work already so why re-invent the wheel, and also the rules have already been playtested. We can add the +/- fudge to cover our posteriors & previous work, account for miscellaneous (unaccountable) factors, and to give future designers wiggle room latitude.
This needs to be done now, still early in things, instead of later, when a lot more things have been published & have to be accounted for. It would also encourage more design submissions.
RH
Sounds good, Robert, but please remember that nobody at ADB can do what you want. The GPD staff or players are going to have to do it, and if they don't do it, it's pretty clear that the company needs to get out of the GURPS business.
Understood, Steve. So what needs to happen looks to be three parts.
First, the process/formulas used to generate ship & weapon stats, like those in GPD Core Rule p. 161-164, needs to be written up. That would most likely be Aaron Hendricks, Thomas Gamble, or someone who can backwards engineer the fomulae.
Second, the process/formulas used on the deck plans needs to be factored/written up. That would most likely be Nick & the person he mentioned in the After Action Reports, who helped with the GURPS Vehicals stats.
Third, SVC would probably want to run it past someone who does understand both processes for a final check, then pass or fail it.
Sorry to dun you guys, but unless you want to forever be responsible for generating all this stuff, how about it?
RH
Ya knoow, there are RPGs out tthere that do no have every single thing nailed down in black and white and leaave many tthings open to whatteverr tthe group or the GM want.
Paladium for example. Fine game.
Just make stuff up. That is the entire point.
Robert: Funny you should bring that up. After learning over Xmas that the GURPS Space data is more or less a rendered-down version of GURPS Vehicles, I thought, too that we should provide some sort of "construction kit."
I've got a lot of irons in the fire right now, and one of them is trying to Space3-ize the Romulan ships. I *should* get my copy of Vehicles tomorrow (was delivered today, but I wasn't in the office to pick it up), so hopefully we'll have *something* soon, maybe for MPB.
-Francois
Christopher, as far as I am concerned, your argument went right out the window when the decision was taken to have a ship combat system for the RPG. At that point, RPGing still held the floor, but with those rules, near exact specs are needed.
Besides, as I said, if anyone else wants to design (for ADB or even their own campaign's use) a vehicle, in order to have parity with what has been published for ship stats.
As a general rule, I really do usually agree with you, but this is one area that since GURPS rules define this stuff, we really need to, also.
Francois, make sure to hit the errata page & also consider getting the Vehicles Expansions 1 & 2. The first is on the SJ website & the later two are tiny things costing less than $10 each.
The Space drives in Exp-1 might bear some looking over as lower TL systems used while Exp-2 has some ideas about armor that could be the basis for PA Panels & some variant force screen options (like stealth) that could give some starting ideas for other systems the SFU already uses.
RH
First off, I have to say that GURPS Vehicles could be the most amazing book that I've ever had the pleasure of working with. The system is incredible!
Second, I've got to give a big congratulations to Aaron Hendricks. Until I started working with GURPS Vehicles last night, I didn't realize the full magnitude and scale of the work he had done.
Third, yes, I'm definitely going to pick up the Expansions. Maybe tonight if I can get over to the store sometime during the day. Like I said, GURPS Vehicles rocks, and I'm sure the Expansions will have a lot of good crunchy bits.
Fourth, I'll probably have a GURPS Vehicles version of the Administrative Shuttle done by tomorrow, or tonight if the GPD Online gang decides to die a valiant and quick death. (Just kidding guys!) I'm building it using the same "module" schema used in GURPS Vehicles (and SFB, to an extent) so that the Phaser-3 on the shuttle is the same unit as the Phaser-3 on a fighter which is the same unit as the Phaser-3 on a Dreadnought. (Not exactly, I programmed in Aaron's "compact" option, which halves the size and weight and doubles the cost, but the combat stats are unchanged.) The warp engines are still in development, but I'll get the numbers worked out. 
Finally, on a completely different note: Two weeks ago, GPD Online experienced its first test of the Space3 combat system. In a classic SFB engagement, two administrative shuttles took on the one administrative shuttle of our heroes. In SFB, this is already a done deal; in GURPS, the 200-point Prime Team characters from GPD Online had a chance. The system worked fairly well, though the shuttles' 360 degree phasers changed the dynamic of the fight a bit. But, alas, our heroes were defeated... though not destroyed. ;) I do have to say, however, that the system worked well.
-Francois
I'm working on getting a shuttle converted to GURPS Space, but have run into a few snags. One of these is I can't figure out what the sensor package from GURPS Space consists of in Vehicle components.
Specifically, what components make up the:
Advanced Sensors/11+ (w/ FTL Sensor) from GURPS Space (pg. 115).
Thanks!
-Francois
In my opinion, it would include AESA VE51, FTL Radar VE51 and PESA VE 53-54, and possibly Multi-Scanner VE54, Grav-Scanner VE54, and maybe a Planetary Suvey array VE55-56. Those would be my guesses. A basic sensor would Exclude the multiscanner and planetary survey array, in my opinion.
ADM
Remember that in SFB, an admin shuttle is capable of gathering scientific data at the same rate as a lab box. So it should have some fairly good (or at least broad) sensors. I have no idea what this would mean in GURPS terms.
just my $0.02 worth, but I sort of envision an Admin shuttle like a pick up truck...
the load you carry in the back is what your mission is.
be it a Scatter pack with drones, or a matter/anti matter suicide assault shuttle, or filled with science instruments and sensors.
Or extra bucket seats for the boarding parties...or a gunner to control the phaser 3 mount.
I would suggest that the Admin shuttle is versatile in what it can be equiped with.
And given the time frame that SFB allows for shuttles to have the mission profile changed during the course of a scenario, the "kits" must be modular to some extent as they don't have 24 hours to build each set of science instruments individually!
Very good sensors. I would start with 1/3 the sensors of a standard starship to match the Tac Intel rules from SFB. That will probably be too big and then pare down the sensor suite until the results come close. Specialized sensors just for shuttles that are incongrously compact probably are necessary.
Jeff. The Admin shuttle retains its Ph-3 for all missions - its just that when used as a SP or SS, there is noone on board to man it.
it also retains it's sensors for all missions as well
Andy: Jeff never said that the Shuttle would not have it's P3 for other missions, just that one of the things it could carry in the back was a specialist gunner to control the P3.
I personally think that the gunners position would be next to the pilots, at the front.
By definition, a specialist gunner IS firing the Ph-3 of an admin shuttle. Similarily, a specialist pilot is flying it. In both instances, by "specialist" I mean someone with the training to do the job -- about 15 points of Gunner/TL (shuttlecraft) and Pilot/TL (shuttlecraft) sounds about right.
Of course, these two guys would also be crosstrained in skills like Sensors, Engineering, Impulse, and so forth.
When playing SFB we don't worry about skill levels, because they are not a part of SFB (unless something like a Legendary Shuttle Pilot is added to the game, which is a whole different topic). You shoot your phaser and roll on the Ph-3 table, and that's it. In GPD, the character shooting the phaser would make a skill roll against his Gunner skill, with the appropriate modifiers, yada yada yada.
Ya know, I've always felt that any Legendary Officer (save Leg. Doc.) should get ACE PILOT status in an Admin Shuttle. This, fo some Officers would extend to Amin variants. Leg. Marine Major and Leg. Captain would get Ace status for the GAS.
And any Fighter Ace would have their status extended to Admins as well.
I could live with that. What makes no sense to me is risking a Legendary Officer who costs more than the shttlecraft itself. Frequently several times more.
Indeed. It a bit of a parity thing I guess. We keep seeing such officers leading dangerous missions. I would suggest though that a Marine Major would be in less danger in a GAS than on the ground?
I dunno, it just seems logical or at least fitting with the TV shows. It may not be nessasary.
GURPS-Vehicles version of the Admin Shuttle 90% done.
Known Issues:
Weight and Volume! Based on Aaron's Admin Shuttle, I've got to get these numbers down, to match the Space3 data... which leads into my next point...
Space3 *claims* that every one of their ship components is "LEGOed" together from parts in GURPS Vehicles. The sensors have been niggling at me because, given the stats for the Space3 sensor packages (the Admin has an "Advanced (FTL) Sensor" package), I can't see what GURPS Vehicles components make it up. So I tentatively went with ADM's suggestion.
-Francois
Loren: With regard to the Ace pilot thing, in GURPS, I think this is handled naturally. In the 2v1 Admin duel I ran, it was clear, that since Archons Prime Team didn't have someone who was a "pilot" (in more than a recreational sense of the word... that is, skill 18+), they didn't have too much of an advantage. (This can also be viewed as a hint: We're ALWAYS looking for new players.)
Thus, a Legendary Officer, based on the GURPS Prime Directive rules, WILL have an advantage in an Admin. And someone could become a Legendary Ace in an Admin, too. (Now, wouldn't that be a great bar-bet?)
-Francois
I started a SFB new rules proposal. I got goofy responses mostly to my Leg. 1st. idea.
(The idea was that his benefits were designed around his high quality management abilities as well as his mentoring abilities)
Please, go check it out.
I really doubt that the GURPS Vehicals physical statistics (weight, volume, surface area) are ever going to match the existing SFB info of size and shape of the various ships/shuttles/fighters.
Comparing the F5 GURPS data in GURPS Klingons to the F5 deckplans I am doing, the physical stats as published are way off. There is no reason they should match without lots of fudging of the GURPS Vehicals numbers since GURPS Vehicles was never designed to create Star Fleet Universe technology, it is based in (largly) real world technology, and the physical stats for their own "brand" of sci-fi items were never intended to match SFB. A GURPS Fusion reactor of a given power output is going to be a given size/weight, but why should this match a Star Fleet Battles APR unit? The overall effect is the same, and the combat stats work fine, but the specific phyiscal details (size and weight) have nothing in common since they come from different backgrounds. I cannot change the deckplans to match the GURPS physical data or the F5 would be way off from what the SFB mini and other already published info says. Now SFB has not defined how big an APR is, but it is becoming clear to me if we use the GURPS data for everything, then the final result will be much bigger than what SFB says a ship should be.
GURPS Vehicals is a great system, and a great way to come up with the combat stats for the combat engine (although I am not sure how that was done exactly), but Vehicals was never programmed with star fleet universe ship data/technology (it has real world tech for the most part, and it's own "brand" of sci-fi stuff), so while you calculate weight, volume, and surface area (which is really just the generic size of the thing) when desiging something as a means to generate some combat statistics (such as maneuverability, damage the structure can take in GURPS and so on), even though the combat results in the GURPS system matches the expected combat results from SFB, these phyisical data obtained along the way will almost certainly bear no direct resemblence to the appropriate available SFB physical data (pictures, miniatures, deckplans or other existing descriptions) from what I have seen so far.
I see no way to fix this other than monkeying with Vehicals stats which would be just silly. I say use Vehicals as is to get the combat data for the GURPS combat system (this seems to be working so far, but I don't know how this was done, for example, is an impulse drive simply using the stats for the existing GURPS items like reactionless thrusters with the name simply changed to Impluse Engine, or did someone actually come up with an entirely new "Impluse Drive" line for that space drive chart with appropriate stats?), but after the combat stats are obtained, simply ignore the physical GURPS stats as having nothing to do with the actual size/shape of the ship in question, (this physical description is what the existing SFB background is for).
The other issue is power, do the GURPS power requirements (megawatts or other real world units) necessarily have anything to do with how many "points" of power things generate/use in SFB? I am not sure they do, and I am not sure they need to. I think that the SFB "points of power" are just too abstract to reconcile completely and consistently with GURPS real world units. Maybe approximately, but I don't know.
Maybe if we assumed that GURPS sizes/weights are cut in half at the end of the design process, or reduced to 25%, or whatever works to reflect the advanced SFB super-tech, then the final stats would match more closely with existing SFB data, although I would just as soon ignore the difference as unimportant and use the GURPS Combat stats in the GURPS Combat engine, and use the SFB info for other uses like deckplans and such.
But maybe that is just me. At least if someone manages to work all that out I will be impressed.
Gary, when you said "about 15 points of Gunner/TL (shuttlecraft) and Pilot/TL (shuttlecraft) sounds about right", did you mean 'a 15 skill'?
Nick, you have stated one of the primary reasons I was opposed to a PD ship combat system, too many abstracts that would need to be addressed to try to find common factors, like 'power'. But we are now too far down that road, aren't we?
The 'Fudge' is going to have to be employed. Yes, most likely totally separate statistics are going to have to be eventually generated for SFU vehicle components, but fudge will still be needed.
For example, why does the APR on a G1 take 4/5 the room needed to generate the same power that is on the SSD for a Fed CA? If a way can be found to ball park it, then that is great. In truth, it may be even better, both for the plan designers & for the bits of color it will add to the SFU. Maybe Klingon APRs only have 80% the redundancy that Federation ones do but are as efficient, or require more routine observation and adjustment because of that. Maybe the Federation has 7 different suppliers for APR units and each has a slight different variance.
I mean heck, look at the progression of being able to cram stuff in on SSDs. From that alone, within hull types I can make a good argument that about Y175 more efficient APRs were used because they seem to take the same amount of space as in earlier hulls but produce a lot more power. This is just an illustrative example.
It can be done. RPGs are just as demanding as tactical games about some things being detailed out. Unless it is just going to be decided that plan design for PD is abstract and has no real bearing on anything, it will have to be done. Does it have to be exact? I don't think so. GURPS is a system that can work with 'fuzzy' areas, all good role-playing should.
It just has to be guarded that 'fuzzy' doesn't become 'furry' and that we never approach 'hirsute'.
RH