|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 2, 2018 23:10:11 GMT -7
For a long time I have been considering taking on a project. One of my criticisms of STSTCS is that it doesn't scale well. Especially scaling down. I am thinking about producing alternate construction rules and stats that would allow more flexibility when trying to depict ships from outside the TOS and TMP eras. I have some ideas about how I want to do this but I am trying to decide where I want to start.
In order to make an informed decision, I have decided that I am interested your opinions. I am wondering how you think ships from different eras should compare to each other. For example, how would a NX Class compare to a Connie? How would you scale a runabout against a cruiser? I already have some preliminary ideas about these kinds of questions but I am interested in seeing some other opinions on the topic.
If this topic is interesting to you leave your ideas below!
|
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Oct 3, 2018 13:39:10 GMT -7
Ok, some questions and thoughts.
As you state, you want to expand out from the TOS/Movie era. But would your construction system be in addition to the current one, or replace it?
As you say, the scaling issue is a bitch. Somewhere on the interweb, there is a FASA module for earlier than the Four Years War era, it might be for the Romulan war I think. It has weapons like electron lasers and ECM devices if I remember correctly. So you sort of have scaled down systems, but I can't remember where I saw it.
The thing is, as it's trying to backtrack from the main FASA rules, it could be shown its limiting by trying to give similar protection with shields but with even more inefficient systems, or less powerful weapons than TOS FASA systems. Plus, if you take the NX-01 as an example, as a smaller ship, it probably shouldn't be too big in superstructure terms, probably single digits. I'm not sure if I've seen fan stats for that ship at that low level.
So I'd be interested to see where you might want to go with this. One way might be to try and take the truncated ship designs (the TAC value sheets) shown in the Star Trek III version of the game. Where the NX-01 might have 6-8 superstructure, and have polarised hull protection giving 5-6 points of protection. I know that some people don't like that version of the game, but it's a bit like the cadet version of SFB ships in scale, or the Fleet Scale versions of ships in Federation Commander. It might give you something to aim towards.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 3, 2018 17:03:50 GMT -7
My construction system will replace the current one. Ships made with this system will be compatible with the game system, but will not be compatible with ships as currently published.
The problem with scaling down is that before the TOS era the numbers are so small that there is no granularity. No room for variety. You posited that the NX class might have 6-8 superstructure but consider that the Pulsar Class warp shuttle has 2-3 depending on the model.
What I really want to know is how other people think ships from different eras should stack up against each other. Again, let's look at the NX to Connie comparison. Consider that the internal volume of the NX class is 94.4% of the internal volume of the TOS Constitution. It is probably made with weaker materials But should the SS be 30% to 40% of the Constitution's SS? How much weaker should phase cannons and spatial torpedoes be than TOS phasers and photon torpedoes? Three quarters? Half? Less?. This is what I want to hear opinions on. How much should the numbers scale over time? How dissimilar should two ships of similar size separated by 100 years of technological advancement be?
|
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Oct 3, 2018 22:20:12 GMT -7
I think translating armor into excessive superstructure is a good way of showcasing the difference between an older ship and a TOS ship. The NX would have few short range weapons and limited power; without extra superstructure, it would play like a slow cutter.
This pattern shown by FASA in Old Soldiers Never Die and followed by Steve Bacon does lead to Romulan War battles involving seemingly endless wristage as die roll after die roll is needed to whittle down superstructure.
|
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Oct 4, 2018 1:35:53 GMT -7
I and a couple of friends had a project on the go around the late 80s to revamp the construction rules, it was never finished as we all went our own ways as University came around and the project went into permanent hiatus and lost to the mists of time.
From what I recall we decided to use the weight/size class table as is but reduce all weight factors of components by 10 and give all superstructure a mass of zero -the mass is included in the design of the component.
We never understood why a huge thing like an impulse engine could be held by .1 SS but a phaser weighing 1/10th of its mass needed 2 or more points adding in effect 3000+ tons to it's mass?
This meant that the construction tables remained the same (with the exception of dividing all mass figures by 10), dropping the SS*1500mt part of the calculation and meaning new and more powerful systems could be added without quickly hitting the class XX max.
I'm in work at the moment so will try to wrack my brain and come up with some more sensible blurb and tables to explain the above more later.
Thoughts anyone?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 4, 2018 5:00:20 GMT -7
You are not alone in wanting to make changes to the construction rules. However, if you are going to make these ships compatible with the current gaming system, then there are some constants that will have to be in effect - as well as limiting variables. Otherwise the game system will not work.
As originally devised, the construction rules really excel at representing ships from TOS and TMP eras. As you move further away from these "standards", the gaming system will degrade. The closer you get to Enterprise, the more simplistic the ships will become (by comparison). Likewise, the numbers can get too cumbersome when trying to represent ships from TNG.
Add to this that the game as designed does not actually reflect what we see on TV and in the movies. It was designed to function as a game on its own that is inspired by the Star Trek franchise.
Personally, I think that FASA did a pretty OK job of representing the shift in technology over time for the most part. I would see that aspect of the construction rules as needing "tweaks" rather than a complete overhaul. More significant changes to the construction rules might require changes to the rest of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 4, 2018 6:45:19 GMT -7
We never understood why a huge thing like an impulse engine could be held by .1 SS but a phaser weighing 1/10th of its mass needed 2 or more points adding in effect 3000+ tons to it's mass? I believe that superstructure represents stuff that has to be there outside of the actual system for that system to work. So for any system there will be additional needs. A phaser for example will need power conduits, a control room, a phaser crew and therefor additional crew quarters to house those crew, etc. This is all represented by superstructure. I suspect that the reason that impulse engines have such low superstructure requirements is that they borrow a lot of the superstructure from the warp engine. Most of the logistical support an impulse engine will need will be shared with the warp engines. |
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 4, 2018 6:54:52 GMT -7
You are not alone in wanting to make changes to the construction rules. However, if you are going to make these ships compatible with the current gaming system, then there are some constants that will have to be in effect - as well as limiting variables. Otherwise the game system will not work. What kinds of constraints and limiting variables? |
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Oct 4, 2018 11:43:44 GMT -7
I still can't see how a phaser even with all the extra fluff that goes with it requires in effect an extra 3000 tons to support it yet any impulse engine from the smallest to the largest all only require 1.5 tons (.1 of 1500) of extra fluff? Just doesn't make engineering sense at all.
I think the main problem is we are trying to extrapolate a system that was never envisioned to go beyond anything we saw in ITS or films 1 through 5.
To include all the new stuff like enterprise and TNG would require a complete rewrite of the construction charts as the current system was never designed or envisioned to construct such ships.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Oct 4, 2018 12:11:31 GMT -7
I still can't see how a phaser even with all the extra fluff that goes with it requires in effect an extra 3000 tons to support it yet any impulse engine from the smallest to the largest all only require 1.5 tons (.1 of 1500) of extra fluff? Just doesn't make engineering sense at all. I think the main problem is we are trying to extrapolate a system that was never envisioned to go beyond anything we saw in ITS or films 1 through 5. To include all the new stuff like enterprise and TNG would require a complete rewrite of the construction charts as the current system was never designed or envisioned to construct such ships. Jim I think you meant 150mt for every impulse engine! Seeing where JAFisher44 is coming from, as well as the support stuff, I always thought it meant literally structural support for a weapons HARDpoint, if you see what I mean! |
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Oct 4, 2018 12:59:47 GMT -7
Perhaps we're looking at scaling in the wrong way. The game gives a value of 10 megawatts per power point and 10 million joules per damage point. TNG mentions that the Galaxy Enterprise generates power in the terrawatt range. If this is the case, perhaps a simple shift of the game to Gigawatts would allow the development of pre TOS systems to use the Megawatt scale. Ships on either side of the Gigawatt scale (TOS & TMP) could be configured to work in mega and terra watt scales.
This would mean that the numbers in comparison to contemporary designs would keep from becoming either ungainly huge or infantesimally small and a real life formula could be used to translate between the scales.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 4, 2018 14:13:05 GMT -7
You are not alone in wanting to make changes to the construction rules. However, if you are going to make these ships compatible with the current gaming system, then there are some constants that will have to be in effect - as well as limiting variables. Otherwise the game system will not work. What kinds of constraints and limiting variables? At the most basic level, the values at the lower end cannot be so limited as to allow almost no variables but also the values at the upper end cannot be so high as to slow down the game during the power allocation phase as well as making some ships completely invulnerable to others. So a certain level of "unrealistic" compression will be necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 4, 2018 14:41:19 GMT -7
Perhaps we're looking at scaling in the wrong way. The game gives a value of 10 megawatts per power point and 10 million joules per damage point. TNG mentions that the Galaxy Enterprise generates power in the terrawatt range. If this is the case, perhaps a simple shift of the game to Gigawatts would allow the development of pre TOS systems to use the Megawatt scale. Ships on either side of the Gigawatt scale (TOS & TMP) could be configured to work in mega and terra watt scales. This would mean that the numbers in comparison to contemporary designs would keep from becoming either ungainly huge or infantesimally small and a real life formula could be used to translate between the scales. I would recommend discarding any notion of trying to "accurately" represent these ships. The game - as it has always been - sacrifices this reality in favor of fast and fun play. The game does not represent starship combat as we have seen on the big and small screens. It represents numbers and formulas to pit one FASA ship against another FASA ship...or ships. Certain mechanics will have to take precedent over the perceived technology. For the game to work as intended, ships from the Enterprise era will likely have to have better shields than they should and ships from TNG will have to have worse shields for example. Game mechanics should supercede accuracy for the sake of the game itself. Another thing to consider is power. As power levels increase, so too should the MP ratios. Otherwise, you will have ship designs that attain rediculous (and not very sporting) agility. Look at the older designs in the SRMs compared to the new ones. You will see that the vast majority of the ships are capable of a consistent range of movement and those ships with exceptional power and MPR only beat the norm by a few movement points. Look at the Enterprise heavy cruiser and D7, both ships can achieve a maximum movement of 15 to 16 if they pour all the power they can into movement. The Chandly and L42A are capable of 18 movement points. The Excelsior has triple digit power levels, but the worst MPR of any poblished ship until TNG manuals came out - which have higher power levels and higher MPRs to match. Older ships should only be capable of around 10 movement points and TNG ships capable of about 20 movement points. Otherwise it will require setting up several map sheets for a small skirmish and a fleet action would have to be set up on the floor because most tables will not be big enough. Game mechanics, gentlemen..game mechanics. |
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Oct 4, 2018 15:01:30 GMT -7
...all only require 1.5 tons (.1 of 1500) of extra fluff? Jim I think you meant 150mt for every impulse engine! Ermmm, yes. That's what happens when you try to formulate a reply on packed public transport on the way home. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 4, 2018 15:20:52 GMT -7
I think you meant 150mt for every impulse engine! Ermmm, yes. That's what happens when you try to formulate a reply on packed public transport on the way home. Jim I figured you were a government accountant.  |
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Oct 4, 2018 16:03:12 GMT -7
Perhaps we're looking at scaling in the wrong way. The game gives a value of 10 megawatts per power point and 10 million joules per damage point. TNG mentions that the Galaxy Enterprise generates power in the terrawatt range. If this is the case, perhaps a simple shift of the game to Gigawatts would allow the development of pre TOS systems to use the Megawatt scale. Ships on either side of the Gigawatt scale (TOS & TMP) could be configured to work in mega and terra watt scales. This would mean that the numbers in comparison to contemporary designs would keep from becoming either ungainly huge or infantesimally small and a real life formula could be used to translate between the scales. I would recommend discarding any notion of trying to "accurately" represent these ships. The game - as it has always been - sacrifices this reality in favor of fast and fun play. The game does not represent starship combat as we have seen on the big and small screens. It represents numbers and formulas to pit one FASA ship against another FASA ship...or ships. Certain mechanics will have to take precedent over the perceived technology. For the game to work as intended, ships from the Enterprise era will likely have to have better shields than they should and ships from TNG will have to have worse shields for example. Game mechanics should supercede accuracy for the sake of the game itself. Another thing to consider is power. As power levels increase, so too should the MP ratios. Otherwise, you will have ship designs that attain rediculous (and not very sporting) agility. Look at the older designs in the SRMs compared to the new ones. You will see that the vast majority of the ships are capable of a consistent range of movement and those ships with exceptional power and MPR only beat the norm by a few movement points. Look at the Enterprise heavy cruiser and D7, both ships can achieve a maximum movement of 15 to 16 if they pour all the power they can into movement. The Chandly and L42A are capable of 18 movement points. The Excelsior has triple digit power levels, but the worst MPR of any poblished ship until TNG manuals came out - which have higher power levels and higher MPRs to match. Older ships should only be capable of around 10 movement points and TNG ships capable of about 20 movement points. Otherwise it will require setting up several map sheets for a small skirmish and a fleet action would have to be set up on the floor because most tables will not be big enough. Game mechanics, gentlemen..game mechanics. Who said anything about trying to accurately portray these ships? To do what you propose means reinventing the entire system. May as well scrap the game entirely and start from scratch. All I suggested was that a simpler balance might be achieved by broadening the scope of the established in game power and damage numbers by scaling it in a different way in order to avoid reinventing the wheel. |
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Oct 4, 2018 18:55:38 GMT -7
Two thoughts. As tinker did with his TNG interpretation, you could reverse the MPR progression. So although older than TOS ships would have low lower, with low MPR ratios, you could have similar speed in game. We know what warp speed the NX class is capable of achieving, of course. Other canon warp data could be used as well. Two, to provide a more granular selection of systems within tonnage limits, what about having a lower tonnage per superstructure point? This could perhaps represent lower tech hull materials. Perhaps 500mt in the Enterprise era, and 1000mt between then and the TOS period? |
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 4, 2018 19:24:36 GMT -7
Ok, to be clear. I am not looking for advice on how to overhaul the construction system. I already know pretty much what I am going to do. What I am looking for is other opinions on what kind of spread I am going to use. How much advancement should we see in the 100 years between ENT and TOS/TMP or between TOS/TMP and TNG? Should the Constitution be twice as powerful as the NX? More? Less? I already have some ideas on that front too but I was interested to see what other people thought before I got started.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2018 4:02:44 GMT -7
How Much Spread?
I remember that in the Card Game, a Runabout (Danube) was about as capable as a TOS Constitution. So using that rule of thumb, the weakest TOS-era FASA ship would on par with NX class. So... A Nelson(?)
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 5, 2018 4:50:03 GMT -7
Perhaps we're looking at scaling in the wrong way. The game gives a value of 10 megawatts per power point and 10 million joules per damage point. TNG mentions that the Galaxy Enterprise generates power in the terrawatt range. If this is the case, perhaps a simple shift of the game to Gigawatts would allow the development of pre TOS systems to use the Megawatt scale. Ships on either side of the Gigawatt scale (TOS & TMP) could be configured to work in mega and terra watt scales. This would mean that the numbers in comparison to contemporary designs would keep from becoming either ungainly huge or infantesimally small and a real life formula could be used to translate between the scales. I like this, it means one could scale the output,I.e. damage and shields, without changing the construction sheet formulas. I tried this before for TNG ships, the damage output is inflationary so I thought if you cut it by 50% across the board it would mean fewer dice rolls. The larger ships get bogged down in play by their own power, so rescaling TNG down by a factor of 10 when playing makes them a lot easier to use. It only breaks when crossing eras. Anything less is like attack wing territory, where Kirk can fight Picard with a reasonable chance of winning. Anything more is too detailed like star fleet battles. |
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 5, 2018 4:54:59 GMT -7
Who said anything about trying to accurately portray these ships? To do what you propose means reinventing the entire system. May as well scrap the game entirely and start from scratch. All I suggested was that a simpler balance might be achieved by broadening the scope of the established in game power and damage numbers by scaling it in a different way in order to avoid reinventing the wheel. What I propose is to keep the extremes narrow so that the designs remain close to that "sweet spot" where the game mechanics excel. Moderation is what I am proposing - not anything extreme. What I am looking for is other opinions on what kind of spread I am going to use. How much advancement should we see in the 100 years between ENT and TOS/TMP or between TOS/TMP and TNG? This is the scaling which I have used for my TNG projects and has worked well. For scaling, the destroyers of the following era should equal the cruisers of the previous era. The Cruisers of the new era should equal the battleships of the previous era. Scaling the new era battleships accordingly. What you want to avoid is giant leaps. Small steps to stay close to that sweet spot where the game mechanics function at their best. In other words, the early NX would be about the same in capabilities to a Larson destroyer. A TNG destroyer would have similar capabilities to TMP Enterprise heavy cruiser. I like this, it means one could scale the output,I.e. damage and shields, without changing the construction sheet formulas. I tried this before for TNG ships, the damage output is inflationary so I thought if you cut it by 50% across the board it would mean fewer dice rolls. The larger ships get bogged down in play by their own power, so rescaling TNG down by a factor of 10 when playing makes them a lot easier to use. It only breaks when crossing eras. Anything less is like attack wing territory, where Kirk can fight Picard with a reasonable chance of winning. Anything more is too detailed like star fleet battles. Kirk should be able to attack Picard with a reasonable chance of winning - that is what makes a game a game. If you scale up so much that a destroyer is no longer a threat to a larger ship, then the game will be flawed. This is why I have always endorsed severely limiting the advancement of shield strength. if you don't, then a smaller ship will have no chance of damaging a larger ship. David has to have a chance to take down Goliath. |
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 5, 2018 7:04:44 GMT -7
Well, I'm gonna keep an eye on this thread to see if anyone else chimes in. I may start work on the project this weekend. If anyone else has opinions on scaling technological advancement over the timeline of Star Trek be sure to let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Oct 5, 2018 10:27:54 GMT -7
I'm interested this idea too. Always been one opposed to mega designs that can beat anything, balance is key to a project like this.
Can't promise to be consistent due to work but always willing to chip in if needed.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 5, 2018 10:57:19 GMT -7
Agreed, but if any ship can theoretically beat any other ship, it's no longer a "tactical" simulator then. That's more like X-wing miniatures when they are going more for "feel" than simulation. Look at naval history, a destroyer is no significant threat to a battleship beyond a certain range.
I agree crew should matter but not to the point where they overcome the limits of their tech. I'll even compromise and say Crew skill should give them up to 10-30% boost in efficacy if any general game mechanic.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 5, 2018 17:39:42 GMT -7
I assure you that there will be meaningful progression in my overhauled system. A refit Constitution from 2271 would stand no chance against a Galaxy class. Even upgraded to TNG era equipment a Constitution would be highly unlikely to survive long against a Galaxy class. This will be represented in my overhaul. I don't expect my changes to make everyone happy but I wanted to get a feel for where people stand on some of this stuff to get an idea of how well this would be received.
|
|
