Ships structure.

Hello,

I guess I just don't get it. I have read through the ship combat rules, and still don't understand why a Galaxy has less structure than a Constitution.

Damage is applied to the hull. If the hull reaches zero, the ship blows up.

Aside from stronger shields, this seems to insist that a constitution can take more damage than a galaxy.

I cannot see how this makes sense.

I am not trolling, just trying to make sense.

I am sure there is a reason... there is something that I am missing in all of this, but I just cannot see what it is.

Any assistance in this matter would be great.

Thanks,

Razuur

Well I think it has something to do with the fact that ships' systems in the more modern ships can take an awful lot more of a pounding than their earlier counterparts, due to the reliability rating.

Still, I must admit, I have problems envisioning a Galaxy class starship having less actual hull than a Constitution myself. It tends to go against the grain.

Then again, I'm thinking of merging the old FASA combat sim with the CODA ship combat system to produce a sort hybrid system that is a little more complex, and will (hopefully) have the best of both worlds.

Even if the basic hull strength is less, one must consider what some of the "lost" Structure in the Galaxy buys:

(1) A higher Protection rating, so that the chances of scoring an effective hit against that structure are reduced.

(2) A higher Threshold rating, so that less of the damage scored on an effective hit gets through to affect the Structure rating.

The net result is still that a Galaxy-class ship lasts longer in a fight than a Constitution-class ship; and as I recall the point costs of the systems, part of the reason for that is that Structure is sacrificed for more effective defenses so that the hull is exposed to less damage in the first place.

It does balance out. It really, truly does. That may become clearer in play if it isn't intuitively clear from the text.

A Galaxy has less structure so it can fit in more goodies, as described above. It's kind of like the difference between a modern auto and, say, a 57 Chevy :) the Chevy is more solidly built, but you have more goodies in a modern car and are actually more likely to survive a crash in it.

Allen

... even if the Chevy has more chances to survive the crash than the modern car has ;). (makes you wonder ... maybe back then they placed more value on cars, so they used the human body's shock absorbing capabilities to save the car? ;) )

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllenS
A Galaxy has less structure so it can fit in more goodies.

---

I'm not convinced I agree with that. Given the relative size of the two different classes, I seriously doubt a Galaxy would have to sacrifice so much structure compared to a Constitution to get those extra systems.

Yeah, I know it's a number-crunching issue, and I know it technically balances out, but I just don't think it 'feels' right.

I believe this was brought up during the original discussion way back when the stats were first released

What we see on screen (whether movie or tv) is what determines how the rpg should run. Right?

Take the movies for example. We see the original E in Star Trek VI take one heck of a beating. The ship took like what, 6 to 12 to solid hits and makes it out? Now, in the next movie (Generations) the new E takes like 3 to 6 good hits and the next thing you know the thing is headed for a very low orbit. So what gives?

There are obviously many aspects to this that must be considered. However, I think it is clear, from what we see on the screen, that the new E is far more fragile than the old.

This is how I see it at least. But I am very open to other ideas. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter


I'm not convinced I agree with that. Given the relative size of the two different classes, I seriously doubt a Galaxy would have to sacrifice so much structure compared to a Constitution to get those extra systems.

Yeah, I know it's a number-crunching issue, and I know it technically balances out, but I just don't think it 'feels' right.

---

Well, if not 'feeling' right is roughly similar to what I mean when I say the arrangement isn't immediately intuitive, then yes, I agree.

Don has said that the Starships book will introduce a less linearly progressive space-for-size system, and perhaps with that it will be possible to give a Galaxy-class ship the structure you think it deserves. In the meantime, I think what's been written works--it just doesn't work the way I would instinctively expect.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by E W Dawson


There are obviously many aspects to this that must be considered. However, I think it is clear, from what we see on the screen, that the new E is far more fragile than the old.

---

Writers' bad plot devices notwithstanding of course. :)

Personally, I don't think we should read to much into this. Especially taking into consideration the probable difference in weapon destructive power from one era to the next. I prefer to consider that unless there is a very good or particular reason, the bigger the ship, the bigger the structure. Obviously there will be exceptions to that, but I'm inclined to judge it on a case by case basis myself.

Using the same case as the Galaxy class in Generations V the Enterprise A in TUC, try comparing the Enterprise D in Yesterday's Enterprise instead. OK, so different reality and the ship was differently fitted out, but look at the pounding she took in that case? Also, when you consider Generations, don't forget her shields were essentially out of service.

But as ever, YMMV :)

I am not second guessing the way it is doe, just trying to understand it.

The 1950's car and the modern car example was a good one.

Rules wise I get confused. yes the shields are going to take more damage, which they should.

Systems wise, it loses me. Yes, each system can take more damage, that makes sense to me.

But if a system gets damaged every 5 structure points, in the end, it means that the Galaxy will be destroyed, despite her systems working.

Just seems like the systems are less liely to get damaged on a Galaxy. It is more likely that the ship will be destroyed. I am having trouble making sesne of that.

Still trying to wrap my head around this... It seems that the ship should be able to take MORE punishment to the systems and MORE punishment in general before being disabled. It seems, however that the ship can withstand more damage due to shields, and then once the shields are gone, the ship will blow up before the systems go offline all of the way, when it seems that the systems should go offline, and then the ship should blow.

is this making any sense? What am I missing?

Razuur

Forgive me for my ignorance (I don't have my NG with me and I am not as versed in the starship rules as I would like at this time), but I have a simple question.

The Enterprise D is larger than the original Enterprise/Enterprise A. So, since the Enterprise D is larger than the original Enterprise should it not have a larger structure raiting for simply being larger per the construction rules? I am sure this is not the case, but would someone please explain?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by E W Dawson
The Enterprise D is larger than the original Enterprise/Enterprise A. So, since the Enterprise D is larger than the original Enterprise should it not have a larger structure raiting for simply being larger per the construction rules? I am sure this is not the case, but would someone please explain?

---

Yes and no. Structure depends on a ship's size, but you can convert unused space to structure or convert structure to space if you have unused space/need more space.

So if a smaller ship has space to spare it could end up with the same (or better) structure rating than a larger ship, especially if the larger ship has converted some structure to spaces to fit in all the high-tech stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancer


So if a smaller ship has space to spare it could end up with the same (or better) structure rating than a larger ship, especially if the larger ship has converted some structure to spaces to fit in all the high-tech stuff.

---

The problem is that works when you look at ships like the Defiant, that cram every last bit of equipment in that they can, and then a bit more. When you look at the Galaxy class, which has space to burn (and according to the deckplans and the designers, even extra empty space for future equipment add-ons and upgrades) it just doesn't quite work, IMHO. I just don't accept that the Galaxy class has to sacrifice structure to get all it's equipment in.

I can see where the rules are coming from ,and it's a neat system. But I don't think it quite works either when compared to the pseudo-reality of the show. Always, IMHO of course :)

Thanks for the clarification. Now it all makes more sense.

Like I said: their are many aspects to this issue that must be considered. With only a handful of responses, this thread has posed may of them. I can see valid points in all of them. Now I can better appreciat just what designers like Don go through.

Maybe Don will pop in here and contribute to this depate yet again. It would be nice to here an insider perspective if possible.

The Connies have 20 space left when finished with all of their components, so 10 additional points are added to the base structure of 30.

The 2273 refit has 4 space left over (although my FLGS owner and I believe that TPTB ignored the cost of the extra transporters or considered an emergency separation system to be worth 1 space instead of 2), and use that to bolster the size by 5. This is because the 2273 Connie has a lot more powerful and expensive equipment.

Moving over to the Galaxy, the problem is compounded even more. Even with 101 space available, the Galaxy goes over by 2 (even after sacrificing 5 space to wedge more stuff in). Again my FLGS owner and I subscribe to the idea that TPTB ignored a couple of point costs (add'l transporters, tractor beam), but the effect is the same. Relative to its size, the Galaxy has less structure.

But, comparing the two ships, is there any doubt the Galaxy would blow the Connie to smithereens, even with it's "weak" structure?

I think the car analogy hits it right on the head: a '56 T-Bird is going to physically survive a collision a lot better than, say, a modern Ford Windstar. However, the passengers inside the Windstar, because of things like airbags, crumple zones and better personal restraints, will have a better chance of survival (even though that equipment takes up more space).