Draft Hull Table

[Crucis]

One positive that I see with the latest table is that it has the potential to keep fleet sizes manageable. Smaller fleets would also keep expansion in check as there won't be as many survey squadrons searching and sifting systems for prime real estate.

If I had the time and play group available I wouldn't mind using a Last Stage Out Of Dodge style campaign to test the various proposals laid out. Personally, a game with fewer hulls to manage suits me fine. It will get tactical battles over a bit quicker. Fewer hulls in the fleet also cuts record keeping down a bit which is a plus for the P&P players.

Yes, I'd imagine that it would produce fewer larger hulls...


For what it's worth, the idea is just that ... an idea. I'm hardly locked into it.

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

I'm looking at ways to simplify the rules for (I) on ships with movement cost of 1/2, 1 1/2 etc. The short version is that there is no (i). For ships with movement cost of 1/2 you can only have even speeds. For ships with movement costs of 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 you use only (I) and the rightmost engine on ships with odd speeds will have an extra (I). For example a speed 5 CL would have it's engines as (II)(I)(II)(I)(II). Ic would have a half size version as IMO the difference between (ic) and (I) is that the military engine removes redundant safety interlocks to double the power output.

[Crucis]

I'm looking at ways to simplify the rules for (I) on ships with movement cost of 1/2, 1 1/2 etc. The short version is that there is no (i). For ships with movement cost of 1/2 you can only have even speeds. For ships with movement costs of 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 you use only (I) and the rightmost engine on ships with odd speeds will have an extra (I). For example a speed 5 CL would have it's engines as (II)(I)(II)(I)(II). Ic would have a half size version as IMO the difference between (ic) and (I) is that the military engine removes redundant safety interlocks to double the power output.

Well, like I said earlier, I'm hardly locked into that radical new hull table. If I go with something more ... traditional, some fractional I/MP's are pretty much a given.

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

I'm looking at ways to simplify the rules for (I) on ships with movement cost of 1/2, 1 1/2 etc. The short version is that there is no (i). For ships with movement cost of 1/2 you can only have even speeds. For ships with movement costs of 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 you use only (I) and the rightmost engine on ships with odd speeds will have an extra (I). For example a speed 5 CL would have it's engines as (II)(I)(II)(I)(II). Ic would have a half size version as IMO the difference between (ic) and (I) is that the military engine removes redundant safety interlocks to double the power output.

Well, like I said earlier, I'm hardly locked into that radical new hull table. If I go with something more ... traditional, some fractional I/MP's are pretty much a given.

Actually, I've got a few ideas that I'm working on that would make good use of the radical table. I'm looking at ways to take X in a somewhat different direction. Rather than being sensors, I envision X as various lab facilities. For example, Xa would be an astrophysics lab suited for wp surveys, Xb would be a biology lab while Xc would be a chemistry/physical science lab. Any ship would have very rudimentary survey capacity, essentially being able to detect large system objects via optical observation. You could see a planet or moon, but other than defining the location, you would need a properly equipped survey ship to do any sort of detailed study.

[Crucis]

Here's where I am right now.

Hull Type	Tech Level	Max Size	(I/Ic/J) I/MP
SL (Sloop) or CT	IND-2 or TL1	15	1/2
CT?	IND-2 or TL1	22	3/4
FG	TL1?	30	1
DD (CVE)	TL1?	45	1-1/2
CL (CVL)	TL2	60	2
CA (CVS)	TL3	75	2-1/2
BC (CV)	TL4	90	3
BB (CVA)	TL6	120	4
DN (CVH)	TL8	150	5
SD	TL10	180	6
MT ?	TL12 ?	240	8
SMT ?	TL14 ?	300	10
Hull Type	Tech Level	Max Size	(I/Ic/J) I/MP

NOTE 1: CVS = Strike carrier, and CVH = Heavy Carrier


The biggest question is whether or not to include a 22 hs hull type. I'm leaning towards "no". It really doesn't seem necessary to me, and I'm not fond of the I/MP of 3/4, though it is the proper value. It's a rather annoying I/MP fraction to be using.

If the 22 HS hull exists, then it'd be the Corvette type and the 15 hs type might be a "Sloop" (or something else). If the 22 HS hull does not exist, then the 15 HS hull would be the Corvette type.

I don't like "Escort". It's a lame type name. There are a number of decent ones, though they're all rather old. Sloop, schooner, cutter ("cutter" is the term used by some nations' coast guards for their sizable patrol ships), gunboat. Gunboat and cutter are already used, but if one was looking for a somewhat modern name, "cutter" might be the best choice, and use "gig" to replace the "cutter" smallcraft name. Oooo, wait. "Cutter" has one problem. The smallcraft code for cutter is "ct". We couldn't code a "Cutter" starship type as "CT". It could be "CU". This could be an issue, which makes "Sloop" look a little better since its code would likely be "SL"... though I have to admit that "Cutter" sounds good. (Of course, this is moot is the 22 HS type isn't included.)


Also, the TL's are a bit in flux, since they could depend on whether there's a CP drive at IND-2 to be used. And I'm not entirely sure if I want to have hull sizes above SD, and on the flip side, if I do, do I want to limit it to 300 HS and SMT? Maybe that's a sign that I should just stick with a 300 hs limit and SMT's.

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

I'm not fond of the 22 HS ships. I do however like the concept of a LEL drive. To me it makes no sense that a race can't start to colonize it's home system without access to (I) or (J) drive technology. Remember that the odds strongly favor multiple orbitals in the 1 hex ring from the system primary. To say that a player can't even access those bodies below HT1 is ludicrous.

For example, while colonizing the Jovian moons is far beyond our capability, placing a manned base on Mars in the next several decades is highly likely.

[Crucis]

I'm not fond of the 22 HS ships. I do however like the concept of a LEL drive. To me it makes no sense that a race can't start to colonize it's home system without access to (I) or (J) drive technology. Remember that the odds strongly favor multiple orbitals in the 1 hex ring from the system primary. To say that a player can't even access those bodies below HT1 is ludicrous.

For example, while colonizing the Jovian moons is far beyond our capability, placing a manned base on Mars in the next several decades is highly likely.

Alexei, I think one might assume that some IND2 races might be using some sort of drive that was too slow to be worth worrying about for tactical purposes that might allow some colonization of their own star system. That sort of drive might ... might be good enough to allow one to colonize the other component in a binary system. But it'd probably be out of the question to use it to go to an LDC, let alone colonize one.

Of course, that sort of drive wouldn't be adding anything to the tactical game, which is sort of the point.

As for the 22 HS hull, I'm not overly fond of it either. The difference between a 15 HS ship and a 22 hs ship is very minimal, and doesn't seem worth the trouble of the screwy fraction. The one flipside, I actually found the "Sloop" and "Cutter" names rather interesting.

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

I like the Sloop name. Since cutter is already assigned to smct, why not use Clipper for a smaller vessel.

As far as LEL drive options, the Cp drive is the only current option. The rules seem to imply that other more primitive drives are being looked at.

[Crucis]

I like the Sloop name. Since cutter is already assigned to smct, why not use Clipper for a smaller vessel.

Well, looking at the hull table above, there really isn't any need for more hull type names. As for Cutter, if I felt like using it, I could just replace the smallcraft "cutter" with "gig".

As for "clipper", clippers were actually relatively large ships, and IIRC, almost entirely merchant vessels.

At this point, IF there becomes a need for another small hull type name, Sloop and Cutter are my top 2 choices, with Sloop, probably the best choice due to its very different code of "SL".

As far as LEL drive options, the Cp drive is the only current option. The rules seem to imply that other more primitive drives are being looked at.

I have no idea, Alexei. I don't pay really close attention to all things Solar. But if another LEL drive of note popped up, I'm sure that I'd hear about, as it's the sort of thing that would pique my attention.

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

I had posted a proposal for a "prototype" (I) in the Solar house rules section. With some tweaks it might be an answer to having an alternative to Cp.