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 SCC on Sun 24 Mar 2013 20:00

Crucis wrote:I've just done some reading up on this topic and have learned that the battlecruiser evolved out of a type of ship from the late 1800's and first decade of the 1900's called the "armored cruiser" (where the "CA" term comes from, as in "Cruiser, Armored"). Armored cruisers were also larger than your average run-of-the-mill cruisers of the era and more heavily armed. More powerful than regular cruisers and fast enough to run away from battleships. Sounds a little like battle cruisers. However, the difference is that BC's had BB-sized guns, while AC's only had guns somewhat more powerful than other cruisers but not on a battleship scale. They really did split the difference between cruisers and battleships, whereas historical BC's had the firepower to fight BB's but not the armor to take many hits.

It's a fine line, but after 1910, no navy built any more AC's as it was decided that (my words) in splitting the difference between cruisers and BB's, they were too expensive to be worth thinking of as filling a cruiser's role and not powerful enough to fight in a line of battle (whereas BC's were ... sort of).

The only ships built after 1910 that were close to being thought of as AC's could be the German "pocket battleships", which were heavy cruisers with 11" guns ... which in a way makes them "armored cruisers" rather than "heavy cruisers" since legit heavy cruisers weren't supposed to mount guns larger than 8". Also, the German term for those "pocket battleships" was Panzerschiffe, which literally means "armored ships".

Interesting stuff. :ugeek:

I've read that, and was thinking of it when I wrote my post. I've also read that BC's were simply BB's with the armor scrapped of, that's why I worded my post the way I did
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Mon 25 Mar 2013 12:04

Here's another potential version of the Hull Table. This table is sort of a merging of the first two tables with the 75 hs size, I/MP=2.5 removed, and the BC-SD types slid up a notch.


Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP
CTIND-2 or TL1151/2
DDTL1301
CLTL2451-1/2
CATL3602
BCTL4903
BBTL51204
DNTL61505
SDTL81806
MTTL102408
SMTL1230010
Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP



Anyways, just another log on the fire of the discussion.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Mon 25 Mar 2013 19:07

What are the TL's looking like to build the basic hulls with the various proposed tables? I'm not really concerned about the carriers as they obviously require fighter technology. My main interest is BC/BB/DN as these are capital ships and in most cases will be mounting heavier weapons than ships CA and smaller.
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 Mon 25 Mar 2013 19:15

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:What are the TL's looking like to build the basic hulls with the various proposed tables? I'm not really concerned about the carriers as they obviously require fighter technology. My main interest is BC/BB/DN as these are capital ships and in most cases will be mounting heavier weapons than ships CA and smaller.


I've only vaguely thought about the TL's, Alexei. I assume that they'd be somewhat similar to where they are today, but that's not set in stone. I might pull down the hull types a little. I've never liked seeing BC at TL5. It's always felt more TL4 to me.

I'll update the above table with some TL's in a minute or 2... (DONE)

EDIT: Also, I've never been fond of this prototyping rule. Prototyping wasn't part of ISF, and I've always felt that it was a subsumed part of EL research, not a separate activity. I don't like it because it just slows things down that much more, and as I've long said, I like a faster pace to the game, not a slow as molasses pace.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Mon 25 Mar 2013 19:48

I like the IND-2 CT's IF there is a drive that they can mount.

As far as BC's I'm of two minds on the issue. Size wise you're right, HT4 seems to be a better fit. Ship system wise, I'm not as sure. I realize that this is going to be different than Classic with it's own history, but every BC design that's been published in an existing product has tech that's at least HT5. In addition, if prototyping is eliminated (and I don't like it any more than you do), you can stsrt building BC's BEFORE you've developed F. I can see a missile boat with W, but a laser armed BC seems a bit primitive.
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 Mon 25 Mar 2013 20:17

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I like the IND-2 CT's IF there is a drive that they can mount.

As far as BC's I'm of two minds on the issue. Size wise you're right, HT4 seems to be a better fit. Ship system wise, I'm not as sure. I realize that this is going to be different than Classic with its own history, but every BC design that's been published in an existing product has tech that's at least HT5. In addition, if prototyping is eliminated (and I don't like it any more than you do), you can start building BC's BEFORE you've developed F. I can see a missile boat with W, but a laser armed BC seems a bit primitive.



A. Yes, If CT's are at IND-2, then it's a given that they'd need a drive. ;)

B. Don't assume that Force Beams will remain at TL4 (or Primaries at TL5). I'm leaning towards making them a higher tech beam weapon. Something to look forward to. And I'm leaning towards having lasers and particle beams be the beam weapons for the lower TL's. (FYI, Energy Beams and Needle Beams are "particle beams".)

C. As far as Lasers, don't be thinking that a Laser at TL4 will be "primitive". I intend to bump IND-2 lasers back to what they were in unrevised 3E, and use the 3rdR IND-2 Laser damage line for an improved Laser at around TL3 or TL4. (I also intend to include particle beam technology, starting at IND-2 as well, as an alternative to laser technology.)

D. I intend to change the entire paradigm of the sprint missile and missile launchers. I've never liked how 3E handled it. Sprint missiles will become "torpedoes", though functionally pretty much the same, i.e. short ranged, high speed, uninterceptible. The paradigm change for missile launchers is this. Missile launchers are nothing but catapults that eject "missiles" into space where their drives engage and speed toward their targets. There's no difference between a catapult that ejects a missile and a catapult that ejects a torpedo. Ejecting as higher speed means nothing since any inertia imparted onto the missile or torpedo is lost the instant the drive engages. Therefore, any missile launcher can fire either long range guided missiles or short range torpedoes, and there's no need for any sort of specialized "gun-missile launcher", i.e. W or Wc, though don't assume that an IND-2 missile launcher is sufficient for launching TL1+ missiles.

E. I wouldn't mind if TL4 battlecruisers have a bit of a primitive feel to them compared to higher TL battlecruisers. In Classic, a TL4 BC armed with F, W, and D will stay pretty up-to-data TL-wise for a long while (except perhaps for the need to update W to Wa) in the tech tables. I sort of think that it'd be nice if a TL4 ship didn't stay quite so good for so long in Cosmic. Put another way, I won't say that I want it to become obsolete at TL5, but shouldn't it seem a bit less leading edge as the TL's progress than it seem in 3E? (Of course, some of that's perception. A TL4 F/W BC seems rather weak compared to a TL5 Rc armed one, but that's the nature of Rc as a fairly revolutionary technology.)
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Vandervecken on Tue 26 Mar 2013 00:33

I think most people can handle the 2.5 engine size, at least easier than thirds and 3.5s and ...

And since I like ship size types and had to physically restrain myself from vigorously suggesting a 105 HS max size Hull type with 3.5 engines, I am a bit disappointed to see the 75 HS Type disappear. I understand the why's in your decision but if I play Cosmic, I'll likely have my own home-rule HS table. The 75 HS slot will be back in (if taken out) and 105 and 135 HS have at least a 50/50 % chance of joining the ranks. Luckily my daughter and her friends are great in math and won't be tripped up if they see 4.5 'I per MP' on the 135 HS Hull Type I might add. But that is me.

Crucis, even if 99% of the board says to not drop the 75 HS type, if you feel strongly about removing it, then go with your gut and make this baby the way you want it done. In the end, us tinkerers would rather have a strong set of rules we can play and modify, over a blah-blah set of rules that has everything we thought we wanted.
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Tue 26 Mar 2013 00:51

Vandervecken wrote:I think most people can handle the 2.5 engine size, at least easier than thirds and 3.5s and ...

And since I like ship size types and had to physically restrain myself from vigorously suggesting a 105 HS max size Hull type with 3.5 engines, I am a bit disappointed to see the 75 HS Type disappear. I understand the why's in your decision but if I play Cosmic, I'll likely have my own home-rule HS table. The 75 HS slot will be back in (if taken out) and 105 and 135 HS have at least a 50/50 % chance of joining the ranks. Luckily my daughter and her friends are great in math and won't be tripped up if they see 4.5 'I per MP' on the 135 HS Hull Type I might add. But that is me.

Crucis, even if 99% of the board says to not drop the 75 HS type, if you feel strongly about removing it, then go with your gut and make this baby the way you want it done. In the end, us tinkerers would rather have a strong set of rules we can play and modify, over a blah-blah set of rules that has everything we thought we wanted.


Actually, Van, I'm not yet satisfied with the table, so the 75 hs type may return.

Honestly, I still think that the i33 table is still the best. Yes, it may not be full of round numbers, but it's excellently balanced!

As for fractional I/MP ratings, yes, I think that the average Starfire player, particularly the veterans would have no problems with fractions of 1/2. Heck, anyone up to playing campaign Starfire almost certainly has the mathematical chops to handle most fractional values. 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, as well as 1/2 should all be easy enough fractions for most players. The one significant concern I have about non-1/2 fractions is that they won't produce engine sizes that are in whole numbers or in fractions of 1/2 (for half-size engines), so you're forced to add proper rounding of fractional values to the process of building a set of engines.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby SCC on Tue 26 Mar 2013 01:40

Even if the mulch-launcher loses the ability to make Gun or Kinetic attacks (Probably a good idea, if the things are spinal mounts people may wonder why Torpedo's don't get a restricted arc when guns do, never mind the balance issues) what reason will people have to research/use other SRW's (like Laser's) compared to short range missiles? A few Mg's, no more then a single laser mount or two, can allow you're entire LRW to do double duty as SRW
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby Crucis on Tue 26 Mar 2013 01:48

Here are a couple more hull tables. The tweaking continues. :mrgreen:


This is an i30 table that's closest to the first table back on page 6 of this thread...

Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP
CTIND-2 or TL1151/2
DDTL1301
CLTL2451-1/2
CATL3602
BCTL4752-1/2
BBTL5903
DNTL61204
SDTL81505
MTTL102107
SMTL12?30010
Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP


An upside of this table for me is that it keeps BC and BB close together in size. But a down side is the uneven sizes from 150 hs SD to 210 hs MT and on up to 300 hs SMT. Now in a way, maybe it's not terrible because the gap progression goes starting with BB goes 30-30-60-90, which shows an explosion in hull size, which is the case on the 3rdR table, though starting more at MT and above. It's really sort of necessary to have this explosion in size due to greatly increasing abilities of those monster ships. In truth though, the I33 table handles this more cleanly in my opinion.

(BTW, Vandervecken, if you had the urge to do 105 and 135 sized ships, I wouldn't create new types. Rather, I'd just call then smaller versions the existing DN and SD's and just allow them to use slightly undersized 3.5 and 4.5 sized engines. Honestly though, I'm not sure that it's worth the effort, since it would only save you 2.5 HS in each ship.)

So here's the i33 table for comparison.


Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP
CTIND-2 or TL1171/2
DDTL1331
CLTL2501-1/2
CATL3672
BCTL4832-1/2
BBTL51003
DNTL61334
SDTL81675
MTTL102006
SMTL12?3009
Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP


The gaps are nice and even all the way up to 200 hs. Up to 100 hs, the gaps are in 16-17 hs increments. And up to 200 hs, the gaps are in 33-34 hs increments. Of course, there aren't a lot of round numbers, which doesn't really bother me, but for those who seem to have a non-round number phobia, this may not be an appealing table. I could produce a 0's and 5's version of the above table, but it would lose its perfect balance, which is the thing about it that I find much more appealing than the lack of round numbers.

Now, in truth, you can get the same balance from the I30 model. Where it gets dodgy is when it's time to start including the MT hull type and above. On the I30 table at the top of this thread, everything from SD and smaller is perfectly balanced against each other. The sizes are in perfect accordance with their I/MP's and the gaps are consistent. It's only above SD that there's any concern.

That's all for now.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest