Page 13 of 19

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Wed 27 Mar 2013 21:41
by Cralis
Crucis wrote:Comparing this to the definitions of IND-1 and IND-2 in Solar... Solar defines IND-1 as roughly up to just before the development off reliable nuclear fusion technology (which would make us IND-1) and IND-2 as High Frontier, similar to High Frontier above. Thus, SSF has effectively merged Steve White's Steam Age and Electronic/Nuclear levels into a single level.


We keep it fluid. One thing we decided early on (but figured would be pointless to put in print) is that it could give or take a little. Perhaps they developed a drive while still having fission power, or perhaps they have had working fusion for a little bit before they get a working drive. The point is, it's a relative technological position.

Honestly, I'm not sure that there's much of anything to be gained by splitting Steam Age and N/E into two distinct Industrial levels. It's not like either could produce space going tech. About the only differences would be in the size of their economies and perhaps the capability of their PCF's.


We figured that it doesn't matter if you are firing a Mauser or an AK47, you're still toast to the guys with power armor and railguns.

OTOH, I somewhat like the direction that Ultra and Solar went with IND-2 High Frontier in giving them a low TL drive that is usable tactically. I never particularly liked how in ISF IND-2 races were nothing but boring speed bumps if they turned hostile. At least with IND-2 races being able to have limited starship capability, those hostile IND2 races will be somewhat more interesting speed bumps, and even perhaps a bit of a challenge to starting players.


Exactly. Not every IND2 has to have a drive, but if some of them do, they are more interesting. Especially if they reach EL1 and become more.

BTW, in the complex version of STARFIRE I worked on while I was in the service, I did in-fact have IND1, IND2, and IND3, with the difference being access to the "high frontier" technology. However, most of the LEL races were IND3 not IND2.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Thu 28 Mar 2013 01:38
by Crucis
Cralis wrote:
Crucis wrote:Comparing this to the definitions of IND-1 and IND-2 in Solar... Solar defines IND-1 as roughly up to just before the development off reliable nuclear fusion technology (which would make us IND-1) and IND-2 as High Frontier, similar to High Frontier above. Thus, SSF has effectively merged Steve White's Steam Age and Electronic/Nuclear levels into a single level.


We keep it fluid. One thing we decided early on (but figured would be pointless to put in print) is that it could give or take a little. Perhaps they developed a drive while still having fission power, or perhaps they have had working fusion for a little bit before they get a working drive. The point is, it's a relative technological position.


I'm not sure that it's all that fluid in Solar, given how the descriptions of IND-1 and IND-2 read, though I suppose that a degree of fluidity in this regard would be useful.


Honestly, I'm not sure that there's much of anything to be gained by splitting Steam Age and N/E into two distinct Industrial levels. It's not like either could produce space going tech. About the only differences would be in the size of their economies and perhaps the capability of their PCF's.


We figured that it doesn't matter if you are firing a Mauser or an AK47, you're still toast to the guys with power armor and railguns.


Oh, I agree. In the end, there's not much difference between Steam Age and Electronic/Nuclear Age when faced by a high tech invader. There would be a difference between an SA race and a ENA race economically, but is it worth the effort and complexity to split the two? I don't really think so.



OTOH, I somewhat like the direction that Ultra and Solar went with IND-2 High Frontier in giving them a low TL drive that is usable tactically. I never particularly liked how in ISF IND-2 races were nothing but boring speed bumps if they turned hostile. At least with IND-2 races being able to have limited starship capability, those hostile IND2 races will be somewhat more interesting speed bumps, and even perhaps a bit of a challenge to starting players.


Exactly. Not every IND2 has to have a drive, but if some of them do, they are more interesting. Especially if they reach EL1 and become more.


True. Against a lowish TL race, this sort of IND-2 has some chance of survival. Against a race whose TL is above perhaps TL2 of 3, the chances of survival probably drop precipitously.


BTW, in the complex version of STARFIRE I worked on while I was in the service, I did in-fact have IND1, IND2, and IND3, with the difference being access to the "high frontier" technology. However, most of the LEL races were IND3 not IND2.


Yeah, the diff between an "Electronic/Nuclear" IND-2 and a "High Frontier" IND-3 wouldn't be all that great, aside from access to the "high frontier" tech. The E/N guys are fairly close to having that tech.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 20:40
by Dawn Falcon
I seem to remember a story about a HEL invasion of a world which was IND-2. Things kinda went haywire when they started throwing around nukes like popcorn on the invasion beachheads, and using tank destroyers with HUGE guns.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 21:06
by AlexeiTimoshenko
Dawn Falcon wrote:I seem to remember a story about a HEL invasion of a world which was IND-2. Things kinda went haywire when they started throwing around nukes like popcorn on the invasion beachheads, and using tank destroyers with HUGE guns.


Sounds like one of the Rigellians early conquests.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 17:59
by Dawn Falcon
No, it was a fan story.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 19:47
by AlexeiTimoshenko
Haven't read much of the old fan fics.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 19:57
by Crucis
Right now, I'm considering inserting a new hull type between DD and CL, and moving everything from CL and above up a notch on the Tues Mar 26th table. The new type would be the Heavy Destroyer (HDD) at 45 HS. The primary reason that I'm considering this is that I don't particularly like the 75 hs BC. It seems too small. Ditto for the 90 hs BB.

In WW2, the tonnage gap between CL's and DD's was far greater than between CL's and CA's. And many navies build "destroyer leaders", which were oversized destroyers meant to be flotilla leaders for destroyer flotillas. I don't really want to call such a craft a "destroyer leader" or "DL" or "DDL", but Heavy Destroyer does sound good to me.

Anyways, at this point, it's just a vague idea, nothing more.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 20:22
by AlexeiTimoshenko
Other than nomenclature for the smaller ships it seems similar to table 2 from March 20. Personally, I would just define the hull sizes like FT are currently handled and let the players decide what they are going to call each size class. It would add flavor to espionage if a player is building conventional 60 HS CA's and intel comes in that a hostile force of DD's is approaching, then that player finds out that the inbound DD's are as large as his 45 HS CL's.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 20:29
by Crucis
AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:Other than nomenclature for the smaller ships it seems similar to table 2 from March 20. Personally, I would just define the hull sizes like FT are currently handled and let the players decide what they are going to call each size class. It would add flavor to espionage if a player is building conventional 60 HS CA's and intel comes in that a hostile force of DD's is approaching, then that player finds out that the inbound DD's are as large as his 45 HS CL's.


Sorry, Alexei, but that won't happen. I don't care if players want to do it that way for their own campaigns, but a history needs to have the hull types set in some way. That is, a CA in a scenario needs to be a CA in the hull table. I'm not going to say one side has 1 WS5 and 2 WS2's (WS = warship; 1 CA and 2 DD's).

I guess that the nomenclature matters to me more than others... :|

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 21:02
by AlexeiTimoshenko
I can understand your point of view. I've also seen a game system where 3 races seemed to have very different ideas as to what a cruiser was. Some of this is conjecture on my part, but when a race builds C series hulls that are as big as it's neighbor's DN's and their D series hulls are effectively CL's and CA's you start to wonder what their philosophy was. I suspect that us old geezers will use nomenclature that best matches what we are familiar with for our house campaigns.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to evolution in terminology. It's just that the new hull tables remind me of the size creep in Honor Harrington. Yes, it does mirror Earth history, but the current HH ships up to BC's are at least a size class bigger then when the series started.

My other concern is that even though we're building a new setting, using the new rules to adapt existing Classic scenarios is going to involve a massive retcon. Either the ships get redesigned to fit the new larger size, or the story get's retconned to reflect that the ships are correct, but the naming convention has been altered.

Any way you cut it though, I'm going to be playing Cosmic.