|
|
Post by walrusguy on Oct 31, 2018 13:45:30 GMT -7
I'm wondering if anyone is interested in a list or errors and corrections from the various Ship Recognition Manuals.
In the process of trying to re-publish the Klingon Ship Recognition Manual, I'm rediscovering all the little (and not so little) errors that are all throughout the book. I remember there were quite a few in the Federation book as well as the Romulan book. Some are subtle, some are glaring. I'm not trying to bash FASA by any means...without modern computers (excel especially!) I don't know how tthose fine folks managed to get even HALF of it right. But the did!!
Anyways - is anyone even interested in that kind of info? Is it worth having a thread like this - or should we just skip it?
|
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Oct 31, 2018 14:18:42 GMT -7
I'd be interested. I'd point out though to not give FASA too much slack as even affordable home computers available during the initial fasa publishing era like the VIC-20 and C64 had available spreadsheet programs easily capable of calculating the stats necessary for a FASA ship.  I'd be interested in a new version. What will you use as the "gold standard" in case of discrepancy? The KSRM or the Construction manual? Also, by republish, do you mean reenter in all the backstory text and recalculate the stats +/- adding new art? If so, that's a tall order! |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Nov 1, 2018 1:02:27 GMT -7
One glowing mistake carried out throughout the whole FASA run of the three Federation SRM was the fact on the Andor class was armed with the stats for the FH-13 phaser system, but they kept listing it as the FH-3...one type they never caught...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Nov 1, 2018 2:44:35 GMT -7
I know there are some discrepancies from the construction manual to the SRMs, especially in the Klingon book where Movement point ratios were concerned for certain ships. When I reconciled my ship files, I went with the SRM stats since there were numerous examples where a specific warp drive fell into a certain MPR in certain weights, but a better MPR was listed but never used. I'd have to look at the books again to cite examples, but I'm at work, so it will have to wait. Some of the errors are less intrusive, like the aforementioned FH-13/FH-3 typo, but MPRs are kind of important.  |
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 1, 2018 7:06:00 GMT -7
Well - guess I'll jump in where I'm at on the book rework - the K-23.
So the first error I noticed was that the engine is listed wrong on the A model - KWC-2...while the Defensive Factor (D) is consistent with the KWC-1. The D factor is also consistent with less superstructure (10 points vs the listed 12). HOWEVER - the weight is in line with 12 SS points.
The D and E models BOTH have their damage modifiers off - and inconsistent with each other. they should read +3 (1-7) +2 (8-15) +1(16-22).
And lastly, the F model rounds the SS down, where the rules state to round it up...the SS should be 17, not the listed 16. Of course this then affects the D factor as well.
Soooo...that's an example of some of the stuff you discover when re-working the various Ship Rec Manuals. Sometimes its a simple as rounding down rather than up...while other times it's a pretty big set of changes. (One of the Klingon Gunboats was a real mess...can't remember which one. Have to go back and look.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Nov 1, 2018 11:12:10 GMT -7
...numerous examples where a specific warp drive fell into a certain MPR in certain weights, but a better MPR was listed but never used. I never really understood why they had multiple MPR for a single size class? Without a mechanic to force you to use a poorer value people will always go for the better value. If computers had an engine WER rating like WDF then yes, reduce the MPR to reduce the WER and shoehorn them in to work less efficiently with the computer? Am I making sense here? Jim |
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 1, 2018 11:49:40 GMT -7
Next one on the list so far is the D-2…
The SS is wrong – should be 13, not 10.
ZD-4 - 1.2
KWC-1 – 4
KID-1 - .1
KD6 x2 – 1.8
KP-2x4 – 4
KSN – 1.1
Total: 12.2 rounded up to 13.
This of course changes the weight and the Defensive Factor… although I can’t figure out how they got the listed D of 69.3.
I get
((WER: 13.5 + IER: 3.0 + DPC: 14.5) x SER: 1.5 = 46.5) + (SS: 13 x 1.43 = 18.59) = 65.09 (65.1)
The only way I know (with these stats) to get it to the listed 69.3 is to add three SS points and that takes it to a class VII…
|
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 1, 2018 12:40:06 GMT -7
...numerous examples where a specific warp drive fell into a certain MPR in certain weights, but a better MPR was listed but never used. I never really understood why they had multiple MPR for a single size class? Without a mechanic to force you to use a poorer value people will always go for the better value. If computers had an engine WER rating like WDF then yes, reduce the MPR to reduce the WER and shoehorn them in to work less efficiently with the computer? Am I making sense here? Jim One of the way I've justified it in my head is using cars as an example... We HAVE the technology for all of us to drive a Ferrari or Lamborghini, with all the bells and whistles, expensive tires, expensive gas - tons of mechanical requirements - always in the shop...so on and so on. However, practically speaking...this is - well - impractical. So we mostly drive Ford and Honda and so on. I don't have that kinda money - don't need to do 180 to get the kids to school and can't fit all three Great Danes in the back of a lambo... So in my head - I usually have a reason why a less powerful piece of equipment is used. Perhaps it uses less raw plasma to create it's warp field - so less wear and tear on the components and less degradation of the Dilithium... Or perhaps a given impulse engine interferes with a sensor system - so the less powerful system is used for a number of years until a workaround is finally perfected. For me personally, I have to come up with a LOT of ideas like this - especially for the Federation...there are SOOOOO many neat looking designs out there - but after a while - you're essentially making the same ship over and over (and OVER!) again. At one point - I was going to make a list to help me remember why system A was better than system B - but never got around too it. For some components - it just simple cost; but for others - the cost is negligible...so there must be another reason. Does that help? |
|
|
|
Post by thescreamingswede on Nov 1, 2018 13:51:57 GMT -7
...numerous examples where a specific warp drive fell into a certain MPR in certain weights, but a better MPR was listed but never used. I never really understood why they had multiple MPR for a single size class? Without a mechanic to force you to use a poorer value people will always go for the better value. If computers had an engine WER rating like WDF then yes, reduce the MPR to reduce the WER and shoehorn them in to work less efficiently with the computer? Am I making sense here? Jim I think they wanted to give more options for different combinations of components when it came to propulsion selection. Granted, most fan designs generally utilize the most efficient in regards to power/movement conversion, however in universe, certain pieces of equipment may not necessarily be available at a certain ship yard at any particular point in time. This is something that most fan ship designers fail to take into account, and thus could also explain why a certain combination was used in a design instead of an optimized mix. For example: There are two Federation warp drives in a 3/1 ratio for class XI, the FWC-1 and the FWD-2. There are seven impulse drives listed for the same MPR vs Class. FIC-3, FID-2, FIE-2, FIE-3, FIF-1, FIF-2, and FIG-1. My shipyard has both warp drives available, but the FWD, though producing more power, is slower at warp. In universe, the FWC would be the better choice simply because it can travel faster, but combat wise, it has less overall power, and since I play a fighting game, the FWD would be the better choice, especially paired to the FIG-1 impulse engine. The problem though is that shipyard where it is being built may only produce the FIF-3 in house, meaning that I might have to delay the launch of my vessel by several months, or even years, depending on where the source of the FIG-1 may be, and patents being what they are (selling false patents is fraudulent, and on Deneb V can result in death you know) probably means you aren't getting your desired impulse drive. So what do you have laying around in the warehouse? Quartermaster supply offers you the FIF-3, the only one available. A good solid engine, but only compatible in a 4/1 ratio. That really messes with your design now since the FWD-2 only achieves a cruising speed of warp 4 at 4/1 and any designer would be hard pressed to sell a front line combat vessel with such weak warp stats. |
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Nov 1, 2018 16:58:51 GMT -7
The MPR thing can seem strange. In playing terms, a lower MPR (2/1 instead of 3/1) is better, of course. But in universe, that higher MPR may net you a better cruising warp speed, the reverse of what thescreamingswede notes above. See my Orion Superlightning which uses the same warp engines as the Wanderer, but gains a Warp 7 cruising speed with its MPR of 3/1, compared to the Wanderer cruising speed of Warp 6 with its' 2/1 MPR. I designed it that way deliberately, as noted in the background for that design. |
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Nov 2, 2018 2:48:21 GMT -7
I was talking about those engines that are listed as being usable within a single weight class but at several move rates and with the same warp speeds across the spread. No one is going to want (and pay) for an engine that is rated 4/1 when it can also produce the same speed overall at 2/1?
I get the whole ethic about multiple engines within a size class and your comments are all reasons I've used in the dim and distant past, I have no problem with that.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 2, 2018 7:02:30 GMT -7
I was talking about those engines that are listed as being usable within a single weight class but at several move rates and with the same warp speeds across the spread. No one is going to want (and pay) for an engine that is rated 4/1 when it can also produce the same speed overall at 2/1? I get the whole ethic about multiple engines within a size class and your comments are all reasons I've used in the dim and distant past, I have no problem with that. Jim Again, I think you go back to something akin to "fuel efficiency" - not really stated in the FASA universe or rules... Perhaps a 4/1 MPR is a WHOLE lot more fuel efficient than a 2/1. The Klingons do that a lot...they HAVE 3/1 versions - but the 4/1 version is what they use. Or it could be that the 4/1 version was what they had when they first invented the thing...but eventually got it more efficient. In some cases - a more powerful impulse drive is available at a higher MPR...but there are only a handful of examples...and even then - the extra power is offset by the increased movement. Less wear and tear is the only real reason I can see. Or perhaps less cost to balance at the higher MPR. In reality - no one would go with the less efficient system - they'd just use the best they got. In fact - the MPR really should be tied to the Warp Engines - its an impulse thing...but HEY! This is the system we got! And it's fun... |
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Nov 2, 2018 10:12:28 GMT -7
Well - guess I'll jump in where I'm at on the book rework - the K-23. So the first error I noticed was that the engine is listed wrong on the A model - KWC-2...while the Defensive Factor (D) is consistent with the KWC-1. The D factor is also consistent with less superstructure (10 points vs the listed 12). HOWEVER - the weight is in line with 12 SS points. The D and E models BOTH have their damage modifiers off - and inconsistent with each other. they should read +3 (1-7) +2 (8-15) +1(16-22). And lastly, the F model rounds the SS down, where the rules state to round it up...the SS should be 17, not the listed 16. Of course this then affects the D factor as well. Soooo...that's an example of some of the stuff you discover when re-working the various Ship Rec Manuals. Sometimes its a simple as rounding down rather than up...while other times it's a pretty big set of changes. (One of the Klingon Gunboats was a real mess...can't remember which one. Have to go back and look.)
So you're using the Construction Manual as the "gold standard" then? I agree in most cases. The only thing I keep from the SRM books is the higher engine output for tandem engines of the same type (e.g. an engine gives 16 power when used solo but 18 power each when used as a pair). Most of the SRM Federation ships have that (I don't recall if the other factions do off hand) and I try to replicate that in most of my sheets.
|
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Nov 2, 2018 10:14:30 GMT -7
...numerous examples where a specific warp drive fell into a certain MPR in certain weights, but a better MPR was listed but never used. I never really understood why they had multiple MPR for a single size class? Without a mechanic to force you to use a poorer value people will always go for the better value. If computers had an engine WER rating like WDF then yes, reduce the MPR to reduce the WER and shoehorn them in to work less efficiently with the computer? Am I making sense here? Jim I use it for efficiency as well. You can give a minor boost to an older design without making it significantly more powerful by upgrading to a newer subtype of engines. I reason it out as the installation of new plasma injectors and manifolds for the warp core (or some other treknobabble) that leads to increased efficiency without changing the overall power. They're using some components from the new KWC-3 engine back when updating a ship class that uses the KWC-1. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Nov 2, 2018 16:10:59 GMT -7
I was talking about those engines that are listed as being usable within a single weight class but at several move rates and with the same warp speeds across the spread. No one is going to want (and pay) for an engine that is rated 4/1 when it can also produce the same speed overall at 2/1? I get the whole ethic about multiple engines within a size class and your comments are all reasons I've used in the dim and distant past, I have no problem with that. Jim I've never noticed that before. It would be useful for a freighter to not lose warp speed while loaded, but it would have to be a low capacity freighter to stay in the same tonnage class loaded and unloaded! When you get to the Federation SRM, remember that quite a few designs aren't legal per the Construction Manual. It's not just typos! |
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Nov 2, 2018 17:09:40 GMT -7
When you get to the Federation SRM, remember that quite a few designs aren't legal per the Construction Manual. It's not just typos!
Nope. The Anton and Excelsior are outright cheaters! |
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 5, 2018 15:01:41 GMT -7
When you get to the Federation SRM, remember that quite a few designs aren't legal per the Construction Manual. It's not just typos!
Nope. The Anton and Excelsior are outright cheaters! OH that's just the tip of the iceberg...believe me! Hopefully we can make the needed tweaks without having to do MASSIVE changes to any one design...although a few folks might want a more "purist" version once books are done. Still - with Brad having the original stats here - I think a good compromise is possible. Just an FYI - finishing the D-20 and noticed that the listed WDF for the D model is for 6 KD-13's not 6 KD-8... The overall weight seems to be for 6 KD-8s as well -but the KD-13 are pretty close as well. I'm planning on keeping the KD-8's as it seems more in line with the era the D would be functioning in. Just wanted folks to know. |
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 6, 2018 14:53:41 GMT -7
D-10
Well - as I said - I was hoping we wouldn't run into any major changes - but here is an example of a change that is a bit more than just a minor one.
I'm putting the stats in for the D-10 when I realized I've got to address an issue that goes back to some of the other discussions we've had here. The torpedo issues becomes a problem - especially for the D-10H. The WDF for all the torpedo armed models is different.
The D-10G rounds up the SS to 29 (I'm almost tempted to make it 30...)
But the H model is OVER the WDF limit of the computer IF you go with 10 KD-13's and 2 KP-6's. By 0.6. yup - just 0.6. HOWEVER! That's still over the legal limit...sooooo - I plan to publish it with 8 KD-13 and 2 KD-6's aft.
Let me know if anyone has a better load out.
|
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 8, 2018 19:15:44 GMT -7
D-4
I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out how they came to the Defense Factor numbers for the D-4. Turns out - they originally used the KWC-2! Grrr.... I spoke with two cohorts and they both agreed that using the KWC-2 would make the D-4 just too damn powerful for the time period. SOOOO - we reduce the D to 41.9 and 50.8 respectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 9, 2018 7:53:46 GMT -7
L-24
This baby points out a NUMBER of problems from a NUMBER of sources. Of course there is the torpedo WDF problem...the total WDF should be 118.8. But the REAL issue comes with the KWG-1 engines...and the WILDLY inaccurate listing in BOTH versions of the Construction Manual. (For those who don't know...there are TWO different - wildly different - versions of the 2nd edition Ship Construction Manual...one has significant omissions and the other has numerous errors.) I won't bother with a long winded explanation of why the WER is wrong - just that is SHOULD be 16 at 5/1 for two 28 point engines.
|
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Nov 9, 2018 13:52:04 GMT -7
I knew that there were two versions of the 2nd Edition Construction Manual, but didn't know how different they were.
I know that the version I have is missing a page (replaced by a full page art piece) which talks about how the Romulan ships should have different CEs depending if they were using their cloaking device or not. So there are more differences?
Should we start a separate thread concerning the differences? Or is it ok to discuss them on this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Nov 9, 2018 19:04:38 GMT -7
I knew that there were two versions of the 2nd Edition Construction Manual, but didn't know how different they were. I know that the version I have is missing a page (replaced by a full page art piece) which talks about how the Romulan ships should have different CEs depending if they were using their cloaking device or not. So there are more differences? Should we start a separate thread concerning the differences? Or is it ok to discuss them on this thread?
I used the website linked below when I was rebuying some books that I lost over the years in my collection like the construction manual. It has helpful tips on how to find out what edition and printing alot of things are.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Nov 12, 2018 5:57:27 GMT -7
I would be game for a complete overhaul of all of the SRMs. FASA put these books together with only their own resources, limited staff and with a time constraint. We have a wealth of new canon information (including ships) available now from which to draw from on the internet as well as a lot of fan-based designs.
Some "errors" I would like to correct concern how some of the ships were upgraded from model to model. The D-7 (for example) ranges from a Class VII to a Class X ship with no significant changes in dimensions (not to mention the K't'inga should be a completely different design altogether). This has always been a pet peeve of mine when reading the SRMs.
Like the discussion about the Klingon torpedoes (http://ststcsolda.proboards.com/thread/999/klingon-torpedoes), I believe they should have a more significant presence among the Klingon designs and should be included in an 'updated' SRM.
|
|
|
|
Post by walrusguy on Nov 12, 2018 11:52:39 GMT -7
I would be game for a complete overhaul of all of the SRMs. FASA put these books together with only their own resources, limited staff and with a time constraint. We have a wealth of new canon information (including ships) available now from which to draw from on the internet as well as a lot of fan-based designs. Some "errors" I would like to correct concern how some of the ships were upgraded from model to model. The D-7 (for example) ranges from a Class VII to a Class X ship with no significant changes in dimensions (not to mention the K't'inga should be a completely different design altogether). This has always been a pet peeve of mine when reading the SRMs. Like the discussion about the Klingon torpedoes (http://ststcsolda.proboards.com/thread/999/klingon-torpedoes), I believe they should have a more significant presence among the Klingon designs and should be included in an 'updated' SRM. Well - this KSRM I'm cobbling together does have a few major changes - the K-22 being the most significant! I went ahead and did it up as a two engine - and had a primary and secondary disruptor set - closer to what is listed in the Haynes Manual. It WAY changes the Movement capability - but overall - the CE stays close to the original. For the K'Tinga...That's been a hot mess since the word go. As I was entering in the data - I realized that the Class X uses a higher cloaking device - which requires more power than the S model creates. So it was a rework...(grrrrrr!) Now the S model is quite a bit closer to the M model...since the M model technically has 6 disruptors - not 4. (My head hurts!) The "Hero" ships are what really create a head-scratcher. Enterprise, Miranda, Excelsior, Bird of Prey and K'Tinga are all designed in the FASA world to work against each other - but in the "on-screen" world - they a bit lacking. Some corrections can be made - and a few things assumed...but all in all - it's a hard one to balance. But it all comes down to CHOICES! And I think that we can probably accommodate a number of them. I'm hoping once THIS version is finished and everyone has had a chance enjoy that we can do a 3rd Edition - and make a few more "upgrades" and corrections to get things even closer to on-screen. |
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Nov 13, 2018 5:57:43 GMT -7
Well - this KSRM I'm cobbling together does have a few major changes - the K-22 being the most significant! I went ahead and did it up as a two engine - and had a primary and secondary disruptor set - closer to what is listed in the Haynes Manual. It WAY changes the Movement capability - but overall - the CE stays close to the original. I would like to see the K-22, D-32 and L-42 consolidated into a single ship. The only reason FASA went with three designs is because all the still shots sent to them while the movie was being produced showed the ship with inconsistent dimensions (some things never change). I completely reworked the K't'inga so the S-model has the same weaponry, but stays as a Class IX warship. Game mechanics must always trump "authenticy" is my motto when it comes to designing ships for this game. See above. |
|
