Warp Points, Take 3

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Warp Points, Take 3

Postby Crucis on Sun 27 Jan 2013 04:06

Well, after that catchy subject line, I will admit that what I'm about to present isn't exactly anything hugely new. What I wanted to do is reset the conversation with a fresh new thread on the topic. So here goes...


WP Type Table

1d10 Die RollWP TypeVisibility
1-5AOpen
6-7BConcealed
8CHidden
9DShrouded
10EClosed*


* Closed WP's only occur when one enters an already explored star system and there are no unexplored WP's that you can connect to, OR as the entry WP when entering a previously unexplored star system. When rolling up a new system, only the entry WP can be Closed. Any other WP's must be Types A-D. If the die roll for a non-entry WP calls for a closed WP, consider it a Type A WP instead.


WP Distance Table

1d100 Die RollDistance from Primary
011 sH
022 sH
033 sH
044 sH
055 sH
06-076 sH
08-097 sH
10-118 sH
12-139 sH
14-1510 sH
16-1811 sH
19-2112 sH
22-2413 sH
25-2714 sH
28-3015 sH
31-3416 sH
35-3817 sH
39-4218 sH
43-4619 sH
47-5020 sH
51-5521 sH
56-6022 sH
61-6523 sH
66-7024 sH
71-7525 sH
76-8026 sH
81-8527 sH
86-9028 sH
91-9529 sH
96-0030 sH



I've left WP capacities out of the above table because it's just about the most difficult issue for me because I'm always of at least 2 minds on the topic.

Part of me says to do it this way:

Distance: Capacity (% of WPs)
01-06 sH: 100 HS (7%)
07-12 sH: 200 HS (14%)
13-18 sH: 300 HS (21%)
19-24 sH: 400 HS (28%)
25-30 sH: 500 HS (30%)

This would be very ISF and the percentage breakdowns of the distance to capacity linkages would be reasonably similar to ISF as well. However, it does use the rather unnatural feeling multiples of 100 capacities, which some people do not particularly like.

And another part of me thinks that maybe this is a better way to do it:

Distance: Capacity (% of WPs)
01-10 sH: 100 + 1d100 HS (101-200) (15%)
11-20 sH: 200 + 1d100 HS (201-300) (35%)
21-30 sH: 300 + (1d100 x 2) HS (302-500) (50%)

And I suppose that I could get real cute and split the 01-10 sH range into 01-05 and 06-10 and do this:

01-05 sH: 50 + (1d100/2 FRU) (51-100) (5%)
06-10 sH: 100 + 1d100 HS (101-200) (10%)

This would make the very rare WP's close to the star also be rather small.

And of course, I could hardcode specific capacities to specific distances, though that may seem a bit too predictable.


Moving on...


Simultaneous Transits

The theme here is "keep it simple". I'd rather not use graduated IP%'s because they just slow things up when you have to actually calculate the total size of an ST.

  • Roll 1d10 for each ship in the Simultaneous Transit. A result of '3' or less indicates that the ship has been destroyed.
  • There is no limit on the size of ST's.
  • All ships in an ST endure more severe Class Two transit effects (see below) than ships in a normal transit, which endure Class One transit effects.
  • The IP roll for non-starships (i.e. gunboats, pinnaces, missile pods, etc.) is only '2' or less on 1d10.

EDIT: The IP roll for small units could also be a '1' on 1d6 (or 16.67%). This would be closer to the ISF 15% die roll for small unit ST's.



Soft WP Capacities

This may be an optional rule, or possibly the standard rule.

Ships exceeding the capacity of the WP may still transit the WP, but it's not as easy or smooth. When an over-capacity ship transits a WP, it locks down the WP (in the direction of the transit only) for a number of impulses equal to the size of the ship divided by the capacity of the WP (FRU). This includes the impulse of transit.

Example: A 130 HS SD transits a 100 HS WP. The SD itself transits somewhat normally, but it locks down the WP for (130/100 = 1.3 FRU) 2 impulses. This means that the WP is locked down for 1 impulse after the impulse of transit.

Over-capacity ships endure Class Two transit penalties, due to the roughness of an over-capacity transit.

Simultaneous transits by over-capacity ships are much riskier than normal, with the chance of interpenetration increased to 50% or a '5' or less on 1d10 for each over-capacity ship in the ST. (This does not apply to under-capacity ships in the same ST wave as the over-capacity ships. They roll for IP normally.)




Transit Effects

Class One Transit Effects: -2 to offensive fire; -1 to all rolls on the Fighter Kill Table, -1 to point defense intercepts; long-range sensors, datalink, multiplex tracking, and all forms of ECM are inoperable, fighters, small craft, and ships in jump racks cannot be launched, but GB's in XOg racks can be launched. These penalties last only for the turn of transit. Class One transit effects only apply to units making normal, non-simultaneous transits.

Class Two Transit Effects: -4 to offensive fire; -2 to all rolls on the Fighter Kill Table, -2 to point defense intercepts; long-range sensors, datalink, multiplex tracking, and all forms of ECM are inoperable, fighters, small craft, and ships in jump racks cannot be launched, but GB's in XOg racks can be launched. These penalties last only for the turn of transit. Class Two transit effects apply to any unit involved in a Simultaneous Transit or any individual unit exceeding a WP's capacity.

=======

That's all I have for now. I like the general direction this is headed. So, fire away with your comments, please.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby Cralis on Sun 27 Jan 2013 04:36

You aren't going to allow closed WPs during regular exploration? The existence of a closed WP in a known chain of systems can be important during a battle. I understand making a WP into a known system closed (it's the only way to really say "you didn't find it because you can't"), but I would think you'd want a small amount of them around the rest of the systems...
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby Crucis on Sun 27 Jan 2013 07:04

Cralis wrote:You aren't going to allow closed WPs during regular exploration? The existence of a closed WP in a known chain of systems can be important during a battle. I understand making a WP into a known system closed (it's the only way to really say "you didn't find it because you can't"), but I would think you'd want a small amount of them around the rest of the systems...


I mistyped that particular point. Thanks for picking up on it. I've fixed it in the initial post.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby Crucis on Sun 27 Jan 2013 14:05

Some notes on the original post.

1. Size of ST's: I didn't place any limits on the size of Simultaneous Transits or use any sort of graduated IP% for three reasons. First, any limitations on ST's only serve to aid the defender. And when WP Stagnation is a problem, giving the defender more help isn't a good thing, IMO. Secondly, any sort of limits or graduated IP% requires the calculation of the ST's total size in HS, which only seem to me to slow things down further. And three, limits on ST size are against the canon history where the Bugs used ST's on the order of 20x or more of a WP's capacity.


2. Class Two transit effects: I removed the second turn of effects here (i.e. having the turn following an ST be Class One effects) because I wanted to avoid having to create an exception for units launched from affected ships, such as fighters, GB's, or small craft being launched from hanger bays, XOg, or boatbays, or ships being launched from jump racks (if those exist).


3. Class One and Two transit effects: I separated any fire on the Fighter Kill Table from other offensive fire because in my opinion, a -2 or -4 penalties for fire on the FKT is just to severe for C1 or C2 penalties. Thus, I halved the FKT penalties to -1 for C1 and -2 for C2. That should be sufficiently penal.


4. Starless Nexuses and WP Capacity: At this moment, all of my WP capacity schemes have some degree of linkage between distance from the system primary and capacity. But with starless nexuses, there is no system primary, so using a table with such a linkage may seem a bit strange to some. So, I suppose that I could go with something like "100 + (1d100 x 4)" for the WP capacities for starless nexuses, regardless of range from the "center" of the system. (And I suppose that for a really simple process, I could just use that roll anywhere in any star system, and forget about linking capacity to distance from the system primary.)


5. IP roll for small unit ST's: In ISF the die roll for such units was 01-15%. However, since I'm trying to limit the IP die roll to a single d10, it was a choice between either 10% or 20%. I opted for the higher number. Ooooo... I overlooked another way to do it with a single die. I could just have small units use a d6 with any roll of a '1' indicating that the unit was destroyed, since a '1' on 1d6 would represent a 16% chance. Cool. That works for me.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby tmul4050 on Mon 28 Jan 2013 22:00

This is probably an obvious question, but are two (or more) vessels that in combination are smaller than the WP capacity considered to be simultaneously transiting?
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby Crucis on Mon 28 Jan 2013 22:10

tmul4050 wrote:This is probably an obvious question, but are two (or more) vessels that in combination are smaller than the WP capacity considered to be simultaneously transiting?


tmul, I am undecided on this. Don't worry about the question. It is an obvious one, but a fair one, given that the topic has been discussed earlier.

I am undecided as to how to handle it. The simplest way to do it would be to say that you could send through (mostly) any number of ships safely as long as their total HS was 50% or less of the WP's capacity. However, given that large size of WP's, 50% of a 500 hs WP (250 hs) can be a LOT of tiny ships! And I don't really want to help out swarms that much.

Alternately, I could have under-capacity ST's have a lower IP%. But that then begs the question, why don't all ST's, under and over capacity, have graduated IP% numbers based on capacity, which is something I'm trying to avoid.

And I could also go with the not-quite-simple model for safe under-capacity ST's wherein you divide the WP's capacity by the number of ships you'd like to send through to get the total number of HS of ships you are allowed. But I found that as the number of ships increased, the total HS allowed tended to not shrink fast enough. (It's a math thing.) I'll give this concept a closer look, but it's probably the only one that has a chance of inclusion since it does place what I see as reasonable limits on numbers of ships making safe under-capacity ST's.

And obviously the final option is to simply say that an ST is an ST, regardless of whether it's over or under the WP's capacity.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby TerryTigre on Thu 31 Jan 2013 11:09

This works fine for single star systems, but how about multiple stars in the same system? Particulary with some distance between the components. At least one Bug Homesystem had a binary...

Also, logically speaking shouldnt massive stars have larger warp points? It has already been established that blue giants have a larger warp point nexus chance.


One way to do it is to add a warp point size multiple based on distance, but also factoring the total star mass.

For example given that the Sun is 1 SM (Solar Mass) then the warp point size could be something like this:

(2D6+3) * 10 * SM (in 0.1 SM units) * Distance (In units of up to 5 sH units, so 0-5 sH = 1 distance).

Minimum Hs this could produce is 5 * 10 * 0.1 * 1 = 5 Hs. Largest one is based on the maximum Star size,
but for example a trinary of 3 large blue stars off around 33 SM each could give:
15 * 10 * 99 * 6 = well above the 500 Hs limit.

An average warp point size would be 10 * 10 * 1 * 3 (at 11 - 15 sH) = 300 Hs.

If this produces a warp point smaller than 50 Hs or larger than 500 Hs just assume those as limits.
Status: 26 types of tech system. Working on fleet tactics. Added b generation weapons, including G, Gb. Possible to give Ships Movement Orders. Working on SysGenV2
TerryTigre
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 23 May 2012 01:11

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby Crucis on Thu 31 Jan 2013 14:53

Terry, thanks for the reply. It's hard to believe that what had been a nicely active topic had become a dead one almost all at once.

TerryTigre wrote:This works fine for single star systems, but how about multiple stars in the same system? Particulary with some distance between the components. At least one Bug Homesystem had a binary...

Also, logically speaking shouldn't massive stars have larger warp points? It has already been established that blue giants have a larger warp point nexus chance.

One way to do it is to add a warp point size multiple based on distance, but also factoring the total star mass.

For example given that the Sun is 1 SM (Solar Mass), then the warp point size could be something like this:

(2D6+3) * 10 * SM (in 0.1 SM units) * Distance (In units of up to 5 sH units, so 0-5 sH = 1 distance).

Minimum Hs this could produce is 5 * 10 * 0.1 * 1 = 5 Hs. Largest one is based on the maximum Star size,
but for example a trinary of 3 large blue stars off around 33 SM each could give:
15 * 10 * 99 * 6 = well above the 500 Hs limit.

An average warp point size would be 10 * 10 * 1 * 3 (at 11 - 15 sH) = 300 Hs.

If this produces a warp point smaller than 50 Hs or larger than 500 Hs just assume those as limits.



You bring up some good points.

Linking WP capacity to a primary's mass (i.e. star type) does seem to have a certain logic to it. It's not exactly Canon, but that doesn't always mean that it's not do-able.

However, I am a bit wary of worrying about multiple star systems when it comes to determining WP capacities, etc. It just makes those determinations that much more difficult, and I'm trying to keep things as simple as reasonably possible. And while interesting, I think that your WP capacity formula is more complex than I'd prefer to use. I think that a simpler way to do it would be a simple modifier to a capacity die roll (if one exists).

I have to admit that I kinda like the WP capacity to distance from primary linkage I have above. Any of the options I listed are simple enough. But I could also just ignore such a linkage and use a single unified WP capacity die roll that was something like (100 + (1d100 x 4)) with a range of 104-500 HS with an average result of about 300 HS. With such a roll, it would, of course, be possible to include without any significant difficulty a stellar mass die roll modifier (positive for more massive stars, negative for less massive stars). But given that the die roll is 1d100, the modifiers would have to be relatively large to have a noticeable effect.

EDIT: One issue that I might have with linking stellar mass to WP capacity is that it could drive down the distribution and average WP capacities below the level I'd prefer to see. That is, I'd prefer to see significantly more than half of all WP's have a capacity of 300 or more HS for canon history reasons. But given that there are many, many more low mass stars than high mass stars, this would have a significant impact on that average. I don't think that I'd like to see Red and Red Dwarf stars turned into capacity chokepoints.




One thing that I won't do is link WP distance to stellar mass because it would probably end up playing havoc with the average WP distance, both in terms of making it much more complex as well as screwing up the average result, which is critical to the LH-based strategic movement rules.

EDIT: Just as an FYI, if it weren't for the need to provide a simple strategic movement system, my concerns about linking WP distance to stellar mass would be moot. If players were doing strategic movement based on actual system hex counts rather than a simpler and more abstracted model, it could be very interesting to tie WP distances to the mass of their primaries, though one would have to figure out what to do with starless nexi which do not have a system primary.

(While it would be very non-canon, you could end up with starless nexi having all of their WP's within the same system hex, but maybe in different interception hexes, if not closer. This would certainly change the nature of starless nexuses!!!)




Anyways, I'll give some thought to linking WP capacity to its primary's mass.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby tmul4050 on Sat 02 Feb 2013 19:43

Hmmm

a starless nexus could still have a gravitational source (say like a dark matter mass) which could explain their existence, or you could explain their existence by postulating a galactic rip - like an ocean rip when two currents (in this case gravitaional waves) collide. That could also explain why the WP could be close together, if you were going with the above idea.
Also sorry for the silence but the net got cut off in northern australia for a while (floods and things)
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

Re: Warp Points, Take 3

Postby Cralis on Sat 02 Feb 2013 23:36

tmul4050 wrote:Also sorry for the silence but the net got cut off in northern australia for a while (floods and things)


Oh come on now, we all know a Kangaroo chewed through the wire :)

But back to the real topic, there could be any number of reasons why WPs exist in starless systems. If you leave it open, you leave room for players to invent whatever they want.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Next

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron