Draft Hull Table

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Owner, SDS Members

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: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Thu 21 Mar 2013 06:55

Crucis wrote:Another point about the above tables... one table starts with gaps of 15 hs, then 30 hs. I wonder if the table would be better if it used 15 hs gaps up through BC, then 30 hs gaps thru SDH, then 60 hs gaps above that. Just a thought.


Table 2 works great for that. Just move MT to 240 HS.

As far as what the classes are called for the new canon vs individual campaigns, I'm not worried. Individual races will all have their own terminology. The rules in effect are just a translation into a "galactic common". The other nice thing is that with the 60 HS gaps at the up end, players can easily use house rules to create 210 and 270 HS classes. In fact any hull could easily be generated using 15 HS increments. The table would then be the standard sizes and others would be handled by an optional rule. I have no doubt that the veterans would quickly use the option to build ship classes to fit their individual campaigns.
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: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Thu 21 Mar 2013 07:15

Vandervecken wrote:Why I like table # 2.

I like the build up to the bigger platforms both as a player and GM. If 3 1/2 was as intuitive as 1/2, 1 1/2, and 2 1/2 to use engine size-wise; I'd suggest a 105 HS vessel class. I like making the empires really work to getting to the big boys. This is probably opposite to what many gamers feel, I'm guessing. When combined with Time dilation such as Procyon and others use in their campaigns, a battle in the early triple digits (like turn 127) will not have MT x 7, BB x32, CL x70, CLV x21, CT x 40 but something closer to the amount of vessels in the largest WWII naval battles. Also, those battles can often be played out in a reasonable amount of time. I prefer not to see the largest few classes arrive until the final stretch of a campaign. Still, I know many want to play with those Behemoths much earlier. My friends from the old, old campaigns were split about 50/50 on this topic. It is no game breaker, just my preference. One reason I like Starfire is that some of the more simpler games in this Genre only have 4 or 6 Hull types. More isn't always better, but in this case it is for me and the style I like to play.


Honestly, I've never been fond of overly slow Starfire games. I like having things move along and seeing a quick progression of things like TL and hull type progression.



As for the number of ships concern, that's a considerably different topic, but hardly an unimportant one, particularly since it points a problem that I've identified recently. (Of course, this is off topic, but I'll point it out and if it seems worth taking into another thread, I'll do so.) A big part of the problem as I see it is that there's no inflation or lessening of the buying power of money over time in the game. For example, if an empire was to stop expanding early on, but continued its R&D, the empire's income would continue to increase as EL's increased due to growth and the increased EL as shown thru the TLF multiplier to GPV. And at some point, unless you keep expanding, your population will stop growing (for lack of space to grow), but the GPV's will continue expanding. And yet there's been no parallel decrease in buying power over time. A world with a GPV of 1200 at TL2 will have a GPV of 2000 at TL10.

Now, this "decrease in buying power" can be brought about by increasing the cost of everything in the game as EL's increase, but that should include the cost of things beyond hulls and tech items. It should include the cost of shipping, colonization, IU's, everything. But that would really be a pain in the arse, so I think that it's better to deal with the problem in another way. The way that I'm considering doing it is that I'd make the sweeping generalization that the increases in productivity, etc. to economies over time (and EL's) were offset by the decreases in buying power (i.e. inflation). And the way that this would manifest itself would be in removing any TLF or EL Growth mechanism from the game's economics. This would force players to expand their economies through population growth, colonization, and trade. I know that some people who have economics training might find such a solution inaccurate, but I think that it's reasonably accurate on a simplistic level and effectively addresses a problem in the game. (Of course, another problem is explosive population growth, but that's a totally different kettle of fish.)









P.S. - I have no issue with the Monitor Class name (well, until someone starts comparing other parts of the list to historical designations for accuracy :lol: ) So whether they are called Triremes, Heavy Cruisers or Brigantines, as long as they have good playable stats associated with them, the name is secondary to function. I'm hoping to get the Daniswar empire building Falcons (FN) 60 HS in a turn or two, hehehee. They have the EL but currently don't have the money to get the Prototype paid for.


This obliquely points to a minor problem that I identified a while back. It's not particularly realistic to be required to pay the entire construction cost of a ship up front. In reality, I suspect that ship construction costs are more "pay as you go". In game terms, if it was going to take 3 months to build a certain ship, then one might pay 1/3 of the cost of the ship each month, and in any month where you didn't pay required monthly installment, no construction work would occur. This is slightly more complex, but probably a bit more realistic.

Also, I think that the requirement to pay everything upfront creates a bias against big ships in the game. That is, if you can afford to build a single CT in a single month, but not afford to pay for a CA up front (say, a 4 month build), you'd build the CT's. But if you could pay for the CA in 4 installments, those installments might be similar to the cost of the CT, and very well might be able to afford to the CA in this way.




Note: I've even considered using a system for Stafire where each total HS # from 5 to 500 had it's own cost per HS. But since I'm already fiddling with enough stuff; that will have to wait a few campaigns. That system demands using hundredths of a MC (MCr).


Actually, it's long been my intention that all warship hulls will have the exact same per-HS cost. Carriers and freighters and bases would have their own flat rate per-hs costs as well. This should make larger ships more attractive compared to smaller ones in terms of overall cost.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Thu 21 Mar 2013 07:20

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:
Crucis wrote:Another point about the above tables... one table starts with gaps of 15 hs, then 30 hs. I wonder if the table would be better if it used 15 hs gaps up through BC, then 30 hs gaps thru SDH, then 60 hs gaps above that. Just a thought.


Table 2 works great for that. Just move MT to 240 HS.


Oh, I think that the first table works out ok with this 15/30/60 progression as well. After all, the jump from SDH to MT is already 60 HS on the first table. It'd just mean that it'd be another 60 hs to MTH (Heavy Monitor) and another 60 HS to Super Monitor.

It'd work out well enough either way, though I'm not particularly fond of the "Heavy monitor" nomenclature. But I'm not going to worry about it overly much at this point. ;)




As far as what the classes are called for the new canon vs individual campaigns, I'm not worried. Individual races will all have their own terminology. The rules in effect are just a translation into a "galactic common". The other nice thing is that with the 60 HS gaps at the up end, players can easily use house rules to create 210 and 270 HS classes. In fact any hull could easily be generated using 15 HS increments. The table would then be the standard sizes and others would be handled by an optional rule. I have no doubt that the veterans would quickly use the option to build ship classes to fit their individual campaigns.



yes, all very true, Alexei.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Thu 21 Mar 2013 20:36

The reason I prefer table 2 is that the jump from BC to BB in table 1 is only 15 HS.

As far as maximum speeds I see ships to DD maxing out at 7 (possibly 8 for CT), cruisers maxing at 6, BB/DN/SD maxing at 5, MT at 4 and SM at 3. With the optional 15 HS increments for BB's and larger just look at the next larger standard class for the max speed.
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: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Fri 22 Mar 2013 02:58

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:The reason I prefer table 2 is that the jump from BC to BB in table 1 is only 15 HS.


I'm of two minds on this, Alexei. Historically speaking, WW1 era BC's and BB's (I consider WW2 era BB's to be SD's) tended to be roughly the same tonnage, at least in the Royal Navy, with the primary difference being that the tonnage that was spent on stronger armor on BB's was spent on faster engines on BC's. So creating a large difference in size between BC and BB tends to rankle my sense of naval history. Furthermore, at the TL's that BC's and BB's show up, a 30 hs difference would amount to nearly a 2 month time difference in construction, which I'm not entirely sure is a good thing.

Also, while part of me thinks of BC's as the largest type in the "cruiser group" (i.e. CL, CA, BC), I also think of it as more of a capital ship than a cruiser. Of course, I suppose that part of that comes from the historical wet navy paradigm of the battlecruiser. I suppose that I could make the "battleship group" into BC/BB/SD, but having BC's limited to the same speed as BB's would also feel wrong. Plus that would leave the cruiser group short a member, which could be filled with a "medium cruiser", though there's no real historical precedent for such a term.

Bah.... I'll probably just leave the progression as is from CL through BB (CL/CA/BC/BB). There's more historical precedent for a BC/BB/DN/SD progression than there is for a CL/CM/CA progression.

Of course, BC/BB/DN/SD progression isn't exactly Canon or traditional, but since I'm giving up the attachment to the Canon, that is not quite the concern it once was. ;)

As for the hull table, I'm still playing with it. We'll see.




As far as maximum speeds I see ships to DD maxing out at 7 (possibly 8 for CT), cruisers maxing at 6, BB/DN/SD maxing at 5, MT at 4 and SM at 3. With the optional 15 HS increments for BB's and larger just look at the next larger standard class for the max speed.


Honestly, Alexei, I don't intend on allowing any 1/2 I/MP increments (which create those 15 HS increments in I30) above 2-1/2. At least not unless absolutely necessary. I don't like such large ships carrying half-space engines. It's necessary to create a decent progression in the smaller types, but not in the larger types. Now, where the gaps are 60 hs, if someone wanted to build a hull at an 30 hs increment, that'd be ok, since it's still be on a whole number of engine systems.

As for speeds, what you're basically describing is the I-drive speed progression in 3rdR, except that SMT's should really be the same speed as MT's in my book, being as it's still part of the "monitor group". Speed 3 should be reserved for something larger, if such types exist. (Of course, by the time they might exist, engine tech would have advanced somewhat and they wouldn't be speed 3 anyways... but that's getting ahead of ourselves.)
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby SCC on Fri 22 Mar 2013 03:42

Name wise, I'd make BattleCruiser's Cruisers, that's what they were sort of meant to be. And for the big stuff I'd go BB, DN and SD, SDH sounds rather silly. I'd use table 2, with the only change being moving SMT's down to 270 HS so they follow the pattern better.

If you want to encourage the historical difference between BB's and DN's limit the amount of non-capital weapons DN's and bigger can carry
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Fri 22 Mar 2013 04:31

SCC wrote:Name wise, I'd make BattleCruiser's Cruisers, that's what they were sort of meant to be. And for the big stuff I'd go BB, DN and SD, SDH sounds rather silly. I'd use table 2, with the only change being moving SMT's down to 270 HS so they follow the pattern better.

If you want to encourage the historical difference between BB's and DN's limit the amount of non-capital weapons DN's and bigger can carry



Well, SDH was a Dave Weber name for a hull type that was created for the Exodus storyline that you can read about in the Starfire novels EXODUS and EXTREMIS.

But in a sense, I do agree that SDH does sound a bit off, given that there are two adjectives in the name, "super" and "heavy". BB/DN/SD is probably a better progression in this regard.



As for the size of MT and SMT, it actually might be better to push MT's up to 240 HS, than pull down SMT to 270. This way, after the 180 hs hull type, it's a 60 hs jump to the 240 hs MT, then another 60 hs jump to the 300 hs SMT.

As for the point about #'s of weapons, one can accomplish this by increasing the size of capital beam weapons to make them true capital weapons. That is, I view the difference between a 4 hs and a 6 hs beam as about the same as the difference between 5" or 6" inch guns mounted by WW2 CL's and the 8" guns mounted by WW2 CA's. True capital beam weapons that arguably mirror 15-16" naval guns should arguably be at least 12 HS, if not a bit more. They should also outrange any standard size beam, and should do more damage per HS than their standard sized counterparts.

You mount 2 or 3 of these bad boys on a BB or a DN, and you'll see a drop in the # of standard sized beams they mounted. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Fri 22 Mar 2013 04:50

Just for yucks, here's a tweaked version of the "second table", using the BB/DN/SD progression, and with the carrier types inserted.



Warship Type (Carrier Type)Max Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP
CT151/2
FG301
DD451-1/2
CL (CVE)602
CA (CVL)752-1/2
BC (CVS)903
BB (CV)1204
DN (CVB)1505
SD (CVA)1806
MT2408
SMT30010
Hull TypeMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP


Looks pretty good.

On the carrier nomenclature, I have to admit that "CVB" doesn't exactly float my boat. I'm tempted to slide CVA into the DN slot and have the SD carrier equivalent be "CVH" for Heavy Carrier. I also suppose that I could leave CVB and CVA as is and slide CVH into being an MT-sized carrier, though I'm not entirely comfortable with carriers larger than SD, though that could just be me... ;)
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby LesMasters on Fri 22 Mar 2013 19:32

Hi

On the subject of the "fixed" class names for particular hull sizes: I think this is a holdover from the original ISF, where there was no TL/EL restriction on what size of ship could be built. (May have gone back to 2nd Ed, but I remember very little about that.) Then, it made sense to give quasi-historical names to particular hull classes. But, once the tech level restrictions were introduced, that went out of the window: after all, if the biggest hull you can build is 30 hull spaces, that's not a destroyer, its a capital ship! (This matches reality more closely - the first RN destroyers ("torpedo boat destroyers", 1892, were less than 300t displacement; by WW2, most newer destroyers in the RN were around 5x this displacement, and even corvettes were about 3x heavier.) So I'm with those who don't follow the rules in naming huill classes - and if it fools some spook into believing your fleet gets super-dreadnoughts free with its breakfast cereals, so much the better!

Les
LesMasters
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon 30 Nov 2009 12:26

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Fri 22 Mar 2013 20:19

Crucis wrote:Just for yucks, here's a tweaked version of the "second table", using the BB/DN/SD progression, and with the carrier types inserted.



Warship Type (Carrier Type)Max Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP
CT151/2
FG301
DD451-1/2
CL (CVE)602
CA (CVL)752-1/2
BC (CVS)903
BB (CV)1204
DN (CVB)1505
SD (CVA)1806
MT2408
SMT30010
Hull TypeMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP


Looks pretty good.

On the carrier nomenclature, I have to admit that "CVB" doesn't exactly float my boat. I'm tempted to slide CVA into the DN slot and have the SD carrier equivalent be "CVH" for Heavy Carrier. I also suppose that I could leave CVB and CVA as is and slide CVH into being an MT-sized carrier, though I'm not entirely comfortable with carriers larger than SD, though that could just be me... ;)


Overall the chart looks good. I agree that I don't want to see carriers in the fleet speed sense being MT sized. I don't see a problem with the Sharno or Shernaku types though as they were meant to bring up reserve/replenishment squadrons rather than being used as front line combatants.
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 3 guests

cron