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 Dawn Falcon on Tue 26 Mar 2013 10:54

Crucis wrote:And such a system should probably be required on a per "unracked" squadron basis. Not just a single system that allows a tender to support unlimited squadrons.


Oh yes. Of course, I'd also require it for planet-based squadrons...
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Tue 26 Mar 2013 16:01

Crucis wrote:Also, while I think that the I30 hull table listed immediately above in my 05:57 am post is a good table, the BC hull does feel rather small. I have to admit up front that I have a fondness for battlecruisers and would like for them to be potent hulls that feel more deserving of being thought of as "capital ships" when defining capital ships in a more static manner, i.e. hull of BC and above, rather than capital ships merely being the 1 or 2 largest hull types in your navy. But I'm sort of stuck between tradition and my sense of how potent a BC "should" be. I could take shift every hull type from DD and larger up by 1 slot (backfilling with FG at 30 hs). OTOH, I have a stated preference for the i33 model of table. Only time will tell.


I'm fond of BC's myself. In fact with the change in direction that Cosmic is taking I can see the benefits of the I33 hull table. We have a new story to write and part of it could be why the Terran Commonwealth settled for sub optimal ships rather than building out some classes to their maximum possible size. For example the Commonwealth could build full up 33 HS DD's but opts for a 30 HS model.
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 Tue 26 Mar 2013 16:17

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:
Crucis wrote:Also, while I think that the I30 hull table listed immediately above in my 05:57 am post is a good table, the BC hull does feel rather small. I have to admit up front that I have a fondness for battlecruisers and would like for them to be potent hulls that feel more deserving of being thought of as "capital ships" when defining capital ships in a more static manner, i.e. hull of BC and above, rather than capital ships merely being the 1 or 2 largest hull types in your navy. But I'm sort of stuck between tradition and my sense of how potent a BC "should" be. I could take shift every hull type from DD and larger up by 1 slot (backfilling with FG at 30 hs). OTOH, I have a stated preference for the i33 model of table. Only time will tell.


I'm fond of BC's myself. In fact with the change in direction that Cosmic is taking I can see the benefits of the I33 hull table. We have a new story to write and part of it could be why the Terran Commonwealth settled for sub optimal ships rather than building out some classes to their maximum possible size. For example the Commonwealth could build full up 33 HS DD's but opts for a 30 HS model.


There's one downside to the I33 model, and that's that a number of the types have odd-numbered max sizes, but build rates are always in even numbers. I'm not sure that this is a huge thing, but it exists. At TL3, when you're BR is 16 hs/month, in the i33 paradigm, a 33 hs ship would be really annoying to build at 16+16+1, though I suppose that you could break up your BR usage into 11+11+11 to get to 33 hs.

Another thing. The nature of the existing construction rules is such that construction times are based only full month increments. That is, let's say that you want to build a 33 hs DD (i33 paradigm), and at TL2, your build rate is 14 hs per month. That means that you'll build 28 hs in the first 2 complete months, then require another entire month to finish the final 5 hs. (Actually the problem would exist with a 30 hs DD in i30.) Do you build the DD to full size with another month of construction, or do you build a 28 hs DD in only 2 months? In peace time, you'd probably build the full size DD, because you're not in any rush. But if you were in a critical war time situation, you might take a complete 28 HS DD in 2 months, rather than wait a 3rd month for those extra HS.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Tue 26 Mar 2013 16:31

Crucis wrote:Another thing. The nature of the existing construction rules is such that construction times are based only full month increments. That is, let's say that you want to build a 33 hs DD (i33 paradigm), and at TL2, your build rate is 14 hs per month. That means that you'll build 28 hs in the first 2 complete months, then require another entire month to finish the final 5 hs. (Actually the problem would exist with a 30 hs DD in i30.) Do you build the DD to full size with another month of construction, or do you build a 28 hs DD in only 2 months? In peace time, you'd probably build the full size DD, because you're not in any rush. But if you were in a critical war time situation, you might take a complete 28 HS DD in 2 months, rather than wait a 3rd month for those extra HS.


That's the beauty of writing a new canon. A good example are the DD's. Below HT4 it would take 3 months to build a full size unit. Even in peace time a race could opt to build smaller DD's just to free up shipyard capacity. IMO many races would build to optimize yard capacity rather than build ships to the largest possible size.
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 AlexeiTimoshenko on Tue 26 Mar 2013 16:52

It's not directly Hull Table related, but I think there needs to be a step between IND-2 and HT1. To me IND-2 defines a race with a tech base much like our own. The capacity to build near space installations and utilize the moon(s) of its home planet, but lacks the tech for crewed deep space missions (by crewed I mean far larger than the proposed Mars missions). An IND-3 race would be able to construct ships with interplanetary range, but move far slower than even a speed 1 (I) drive vessel. As usual developing (I) would be the signature achievement of a HT1 race, as (I) would be the first drive capable of surviving a WP transit.
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 Tue 26 Mar 2013 20:05

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:It's not directly Hull Table related, but I think there needs to be a step between IND-2 and HT1. To me IND-2 defines a race with a tech base much like our own. The capacity to build near space installations and utilize the moon(s) of its home planet, but lacks the tech for crewed deep space missions (by crewed I mean far larger than the proposed Mars missions). An IND-3 race would be able to construct ships with interplanetary range, but move far slower than even a speed 1 (I) drive vessel. As usual developing (I) would be the signature achievement of a HT1 race, as (I) would be the first drive capable of surviving a WP transit.


Alexei, this is sort of a tricky subject. ISF and Ultra/Solar have slightly different definitions of IND-1 and IND-2.

By ISF's definition, I think that we'd be an early IND2 planet, but by Ultra/Solar, we've be a late IND-1. I'm tempted to lean more towards the Ultra/Solar definition, if we want to include some crude spaceships at IND-2, simply because I don't really think that there's much to be gained by creating another LEL tech level.

As far as what a drive tech could look like for IND-2, I think that drive tech that's slower than even speed 1 is useless within the game. It seems to me that the drive has to provide a reasonable speed to make it worth allowing for the possibility of space flight and armed INT-2 ships. Ultra uses a relatively "charged particle" drive (Cp). Solar takes the Cp drive a couple steps further and adds more detail to make it a rather interesting drive type, but somewhat more complex than pretty much every other other drive type.

I really don't want to go to the level of detail/complexity for an IND-2 drive. However, I can understand the desire for an IND-2 drive. IND-2 races are usually just speed bumps to a player race, if they're not friendly. Giving them engines lets them have at least some armed ships that can make hostile IND-2 races a more interesting speed bump.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Wed 27 Mar 2013 05:54

I don't want to go into specifics on tech as this is a hull table thread. I do remember one of the old Nexus articles that defined IND-2 as electronic/nuclear but without meaningful spaceflight capacity. In effect where we actually are as opposed to what our tech base in theory allows. That article added IND-3 as "high frontier" to define a race that had the ability to utilize near space (i.e SS/ouposts on the home planets moons) but no real deep space capacity.

What I see, purely from a construction standpoint (the hull itself) is that we could build fairly large SS now IF we as a species wanted to make the investment. I don't see Humanity being able to build a spacecraft capable of transporting a large crew (several dozen?) into deep space anytime soon. I think that there needs to be a step between IND-2 and HT1 to represent races that have the ability to produce hulls that can withstand the rigors of long term deep space travel, but lack advanced drives to make crewed outer system missions practical.
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 Wed 27 Mar 2013 09:04

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I don't want to go into specifics on tech as this is a hull table thread. I do remember one of the old Nexus articles that defined IND-2 as electronic/nuclear but without meaningful spaceflight capacity. In effect where we actually are as opposed to what our tech base in theory allows. That article added IND-3 as "high frontier" to define a race that had the ability to utilize near space (i.e SS/ouposts on the home planets moons) but no real deep space capacity.

What I see, purely from a construction standpoint (the hull itself) is that we could build fairly large SS now IF we as a species wanted to make the investment. I don't see Humanity being able to build a spacecraft capable of transporting a large crew (several dozen?) into deep space anytime soon. I think that there needs to be a step between IND-2 and HT1 to represent races that have the ability to produce hulls that can withstand the rigors of long term deep space travel, but lack advanced drives to make crewed outer system missions practical.



Alexei, the article in question is in NEXUS #17, pages 11-12, and is titled "Steamboats and Space Stations", written by none other than Steve White, a co-author of the Starfire novels. It was a good article, for its time, but it seems a smidge outdated, given that it was written when 2nd Edition was the current version of Starfire, and there was only a single Industrial level, not the Ind-1 and Ind-2 of ISF and beyond.

The idea of creating a distinction between what Steve calls "the "Electronic/Nuclear" Industrial level and the "High Frontier" Industrial level is decent enough. The problem is in trying to set an human historical date for it because it seems like the dates are always a bit aggressive, or just overly hopeful.

For those who haven't read the article or who have but don't remember it, Steve White basically proposed 3 separate Industrial levels: Steam Age (Ind-1), Electronic/Nuclear (Ind-2), and High Frontier (Ind-3). ISF and beyond basically split the difference and created two rather than one. The Steam Age is defined as roughly the late 18th century up to about the early 20th century. Electronic/Nuclear is defined as the middle to late 20th century (though it should really still be ongoing). And High Frontier is defined as early 21th century (that prediction isn't looking too good right now).


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.

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.

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.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Draft Hull Table

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Wed 27 Mar 2013 19:46

I know the article well. I'm not as familiar with Ultra/SSF but I can understand their take on IND-1/2. Shows like SG-1 to the contrary, I doubt that Earth would be a serious obstacle for an invading HT alien race. That would put us at IND-1. Wealth generating, but not a military threat. As currently defined IND-2 is another story.

Personally I would love to play a race starting at IND-2 and watch it develop and explore it's own home system then move on to the stars.

On another note, as currently defined, both the I30 and I33 hull tables run into oddities with construction rates. Not only do both tables have hulls with an odd number of spaces, but at most TL's construction times for smaller ships will extend into the next month by a few days. In fact, with maximum sized ships there are no clean (by clean I mean a build not extending into another month) builds until HT5.
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 Wed 27 Mar 2013 19:54

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I know the article well. I'm not as familiar with Ultra/SSF but I can understand their take on IND-1/2. Shows like SG-1 to the contrary, I doubt that Earth would be a serious obstacle for an invading HT alien race. That would put us at IND-1. Wealth generating, but not a military threat. As currently defined IND-2 is another story.

Personally I would love to play a race starting at IND-2 and watch it develop and explore its own home system then move on to the stars.

On another note, as currently defined, both the I30 and I33 hull tables run into oddities with construction rates. Not only do both tables have hulls with an odd number of spaces, but at most TL's construction times for smaller ships will extend into the next month by a few days. In fact, with maximum sized ships there are no clean (by clean I mean a build not extending into another month) builds until HT5.


In something closer to real life, you'd just take delivery of the ship on whatever day it was completed (ignoring little details like builders trials, etc.). But for simplicity's sake, you only take delivery in Starfire at the beginning of the month after construction is completed.

And yes, there are always going to be oddities between the construction rates and the hull sizes. It's probably relatively rare that one gets a perfect sync between build rate and max size of a currently desirable hull type.
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