Warp Points, Take 2

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.

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Fri 04 Jan 2013 22:02

I really like the latest table. I know that the odds of finding a wp very close in are small. What concerned me is that the area outside 20 sH was greater than the area inside that radius and thus less likeky to be traveled both due to sheer area and the vast distance between planets/wp's. Closer in I think you'll find more traffic and thus a greater chance of either making an unplanned transit or noticing the visitors as soon as they arrive (Orphicon, Home Hive 3, and Centauris are just a few examples of where ships transited unnoticed because the closed wp as father out in the system).

The revised capacity for closed wp's suits me fine as there were only a couple of 500 HS capacity closed wp's in SaW.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Sat 05 Jan 2013 14:09

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I really like the latest table. I know that the odds of finding a wp very close in are small. What concerned me is that the area outside 20 sH was greater than the area inside that radius and thus less likeky to be traveled both due to sheer area and the vast distance between planets/wp's. Closer in I think you'll find more traffic and thus a greater chance of either making an unplanned transit or noticing the visitors as soon as they arrive (Orphicon, Home Hive 3, and Centauris are just a few examples of where ships transited unnoticed because the closed wp as father out in the system).

The revised capacity for closed wp's suits me fine as there were only a couple of 500 HS capacity closed wp's in SaW.


Actually, Alexei, I wouldn't assume that the star systems in the various scenario modules were holy writ. I assume that Dave Weber manually created the star systems to fit his narrative (though obeying the sysgen rules). In theory, the old ISF type 15 WP (500 HS capacity) should have been the most common type of WP, since whenever you entered a previously surveyed system (and hence the WP was automatically a closed one), you were supposed to add something like 74 to the WP type die roll. The effect of this would mean that types 12-14 would exist for about 6-7% each, but type 15 would exist on the remaining 80-ish% of the time, which is why I think that the type 15's distance is 1-360 LM. It was so common that DW gave it a distance that allowed it to exist anywhere in the star system.

So if it seems that type 15's don't occur that often in SAW, it doesn't mean all that much, because its star systems wouldn't have been generated in the same way as an as-needed player campaign. Trust me, in an actual player campaign with as needed system generation, type 15's would be the most common type of closed WP.


However, thanks for the positive feedback on the latest WP Type table. I'm not entirely sure whether the percentages assigned to each type will be the final version, but I like the overall structure of this version of WP types. As tmul4050 said, it's nice and simple.

Does the use of d6's rather than d10's in the distance process bother you any? I've tried to only use d10's in the sysgen process, for the most part, but I've made the assumption that d6's are so common that players probably have access to some. Also, I wanted to use a bell curved result distribution in the distance determination process. Somehow it felt right. But I don't think that using 1d10 instead of 2d6 would seriously hurt things.


Speaking of WP capacities for closed WP's, which do you prefer of the options I listed in the last version's post? I have to admit that I think that I like the one with the capacity range of 104-500 HS. All of them work, of course.



I should also point out that I never got much in the way of feedback on the idea of making the Supermonitor the largest allowed hull type. If this were the case, I'd probably tweak the WP capacities so that the max capacity was somewhere in the vicinity of 300 HS, rather than 500 HS. Any thoughts on this? Anyone?
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Sat 05 Jan 2013 14:57

A note on Closed WP's.

When the WP model includes closed WP's, one has to handle the sysgen process differently when one is doing it on an as-needed basis vs. an all at once basis, with a sysgen program automatically connecting all the WP's.

In the as-needed model, ISF ruled that only the entry WP could be closed and that any other WP's in the star system would be non-closed. Hence, a die roll modifier was used. This will also be the case with this new WP Type table, though it appears that the die roll modifier will be quite simple ... -1 to the die roll. Also, as in ISF, when one entered an already surveyed star system (when using as-needed sysgen), the WP was automatically closed. With this new WP model, there's no need to roll for what type of closed WP, since there is only a single type.

But perhaps it should be considered that in an as-needed sysgen model, if race A entered system XYZ that had been previously surveyed by race B, if there are still some unexplored WP's in system XYZ, it seems to me that there's no legit reason why an SM couldn't merely decide to cause race A's ship to exit from one of the unexplored WP's rather than creating a new closed WP. Of course, if there are multiple unexplored WP's in the system, the SM would have to randomly determine which one race A's ship came out of, but if there's only one, then the question is moot. It would seem that only if there are no unexplored WPs in the system should there be a need to create a previously unknown closed WP.

Anyways, just some thoughts...
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Cralis on Sat 05 Jan 2013 15:01

Crucis wrote:I should also point out that I never got much in the way of feedback on the idea of making the Supermonitor the largest allowed hull type. If this were the case, I'd probably tweak the WP capacities so that the max capacity was somewhere in the vicinity of 300 HS, rather than 500 HS. Any thoughts on this? Anyone?


Would you provide a technology that would increase WP size, such as in Exodus/Extremis?
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11123
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Sat 05 Jan 2013 15:42

Cralis wrote:
Crucis wrote:I should also point out that I never got much in the way of feedback on the idea of making the Supermonitor the largest allowed hull type. If this were the case, I'd probably tweak the WP capacities so that the max capacity was somewhere in the vicinity of 300 HS, rather than 500 HS. Any thoughts on this? Anyone?


Would you provide a technology that would increase WP size, such as in Exodus/Extremis?


I was leaning against it. The only reason that such a technology was developed (in the context of the narrative) was that the alliance races were faced with having to fight those mega-huge system defense ships of the Arduans, and really needed to push hull sizes larger, producing the 500 HS Devastator hull type, and not all that much later, the 1000 HS Super-Devastator hull type, along with the tech that "bored out" the WP's to increase their capacities.

Honestly, this isn't really a direction that I'd prefer to go. Or at least, only allow such a technology to bore out smaller WP's up to a max size around 300 HS.


Supermonitors seem like a large enough size for the game, at least from my perspective. And the idea that there's an upper limit to hull sizes isn't exactly a new one. In Weber's Honorverse, hull sizes are maxed out at superdreadnought, because there's something in the pseudo-physics of the Honorverse that creates that tonnage limit. In Starfire, it'd just be that WP's limit the max hull size.


BTW, I should note that if one includes language that allows for ships larger than a WP's capacity to use multiple impulses to complete a transit, then the concept of a maximum hull size linked to WP capacity goes out the window, since even if you came across a 300 HS WP, you could just stuff thru a 600 HS ship in 2 tactical pulses. Allowing for multiple pulse transits effectively removes any limits on hull size, at least any limits linked to WP capacities.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Dawn Falcon on Sat 05 Jan 2013 15:50

No, but it's easy to do much the same as the Honourverse - ships bigger than a certain size don't move well with drive-field technology involved.
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Sat 05 Jan 2013 18:16

Dawn Falcon wrote:No, but it's easy to do much the same as the Honourverse - ships bigger than a certain size don't move well with drive-field technology involved.


I'd have to go back and read some of the tech related appendices for the Honorverse, but IIRC, the basic STL engines used are incapable of moving anything above a certain tonnage. So, in Starfire terms, you might have a supermonitor having a basic I-drive speed of 3 or 4, but anything larger not being able to move at all, perhaps because the drive field collapses above a certain tonnage/volume/# of HS. It might also be an argument in support of limiting OWP size as well, since they use station-keeping drives to let them remain stationary, as well as provide DF protection.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Cralis on Sat 05 Jan 2013 19:15

Crucis wrote:BTW, I should note that if one includes language that allows for ships larger than a WP's capacity to use multiple impulses to complete a transit, then the concept of a maximum hull size linked to WP capacity goes out the window, since even if you came across a 300 HS WP, you could just stuff thru a 600 HS ship in 2 tactical pulses. Allowing for multiple pulse transits effectively removes any limits on hull size, at least any limits linked to WP capacities.


That is precisely what we did for ULTRA/SSF. It does make WP assaults play a lot differently. But we also changed the physics so that sub-max size simultransits didn't have penalties as well. An extension of the same pseudo-science assumptions.

I don't expect you do to the same for COSMIC.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11123
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Dawn Falcon on Sat 05 Jan 2013 19:32

Crucis wrote:It might also be an argument in support of limiting OWP size as well, since they use station-keeping drives to let them remain stationary, as well as provide DF protection.


Standby fields are less of an issue, since bases can't move...it does cause an issue with Asteroid Forts if you go that route, too.
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Sat 05 Jan 2013 20:55

I would treat an OWP's station keeping DF as being similar to the sidewall generators in the Honorverse. They wouldn't provide motive power, but would provide protection from incoming weapons fire.

Crucis wrote:Does the use of d6's rather than d10's in the distance process bother you any? I've tried to only use d10's in the sysgen process, for the most part, but I've made the assumption that d6's are so common that players probably have access to some. Also, I wanted to use a bell curved result distribution in the distance determination process. Somehow it felt right. But I don't think that using 1d10 instead of 2d6 would seriously hurt things.


D6's don't bother me at all. Virtually everyone has easy access to them. In fact I could see potential cases where you could combine d6 + d10 to simulate a 2-16 variable if desired.

Crucis wrote:Actually, Alexei, I wouldn't assume that the star systems in the various scenario modules were holy writ. I assume that Dave Weber manually created the star systems to fit his narrative (though obeying the sysgen rules). In theory, the old ISF type 15 WP (500 HS capacity) should have been the most common type of WP, since whenever you entered a previously surveyed system (and hence the WP was automatically a closed one), you were supposed to add something like 74 to the WP type die roll. The effect of this would mean that types 12-14 would exist for about 6-7% each, but type 15 would exist on the remaining 80-ish% of the time, which is why I think that the type 15's distance is 1-360 LM. It was so common that DW gave it a distance that allowed it to exist anywhere in the star system.

So if it seems that type 15's don't occur that often in SAW, it doesn't mean all that much, because its star systems wouldn't have been generated in the same way as an as-needed player campaign. Trust me, in an actual player campaign with as needed system generation, type 15's would be the most common type of closed WP.


I don't take the scenarios as writ, but as framework to base my own setting/fiction on. Actually, the ISF type 15 wp is very close to the values on the latest table.

Crucis wrote:Speaking of WP capacities for closed WP's, which do you prefer of the options I listed in the last version's post? I have to admit that I think that I like the one with the capacity range of 104-500 HS. All of them work, of course.


That's my preference as well. It allows for the chance of a very nasty surprise for an unsuspecting race.

Crucis wrote:I should also point out that I never got much in the way of feedback on the idea of making the Supermonitor the largest allowed hull type. If this were the case, I'd probably tweak the WP capacities so that the max capacity was somewhere in the vicinity of 300 HS, rather than 500 HS. Any thoughts on this? Anyone?


I would say 300 HS as the maximum to be able to move at speed 3 on the tactical scale. I would put a limit of speed one at tactical for ships 301-500 HS with no boost for (It). I know that it's' larger than canon, but it does fit with the theme of the chapter "Fortress" in Insurrection. My ides is that TFNS Sergei Ortega was a modified BS7 with very limited movement on the tactical scale. Ships from 301-500 HS would be mobile but not wp capable.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests