Galaxy Class Starship

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doktor Evil
the new mantra of the RPG industry. Hasty designs, half-assed research. Full of bugs? Download the errata or better yet, buy the 2nd ed. ... that will be published 6 months later. "You don't like certain parts? Well, change them." Translation : the system is full of bugs and anomalies, re-do it yourself.

---

I don't think is any more true than it ever was (and I have plenty of pre-internet games to support me here). It's simply that now there is the ability to distribute errata easily, at no cost to the consumer I might add, not even a postage stamp. I've seen a lot of errata posted for various games that very few people ever would have caught.

-- Daniel

I really think we're putting the cart before the horse here. Like Don says - we've not seen the rules that the ships are written in accordance with.

Besides - if one doesn't like the CODA system's ship system - just use SPACEDOCK!

Evil,

Personally I prefer "If you don't like it change it" to the old way RPG designers used to handle this-"Do I our way, 'cuz we said so, and any other way will ruin game balance." Took over decade to get TSR to budge from that stance. I even remeber the joke abvout the gamer who goes to heavy and asks about the identiy of the aAl-mighty and is told that it's okay to talk to Him, but He prefers to be called GARRY.

I agree that a lot of RPGs these days have half-baked game mechanics and pass it off as "role-play not rule-play", butits not fair to accuuse the CODA desiners fo this, at least until the game is released.

But this is just about CODA (specifically starship combat in CODA). Unitl we see how the game works we don't know what the number's mean.

As for the cinematic damage, the "rule" for TV seems to be that the ships do behave logical and consistient unless an important character is involved.

On TV/film those Galxazy-class ships never leasted that long once the shields were down, but the Connies survived quite a pounding, both in the series and in film (STII and VI in particular).

If you remember some of my space combat games I had a rule where a PC could spend a courage point and reduce damage taken to only 1 pt. SPACEDOCK had a similar rule.


But this is about the Struture ratings of the Constitution and Galaxy-class in CODA. What evidence exisits on the topic (and that is sketky) can support either ship having more SP. It depends on what value you want to place on various factors, and since this is SF all the values are suspect. Being realistic, all those windows allone would probably ompromise the basic hull of the Galaxy. Accordining to the data give in the TM the galaxy class needs it SIF just to hold together. Alos, the glaxaly class has about 50 times the volume of a Constitution class, but a mass of either 15 times or 4 times that of the Connie, depending on which sources you use.

While the Galaxy probably uses better materials, it also seems to be getting strength from it's SIF. It looks like for CODA this was simplified into raising the Shield Ratings. Since CODA has simplified phaser and torpdo stats, and made other trade-offs for game play, it seesm accepable for that game. CODA appears to handle things in an abstract fashion rather than a detailed tactical fashion. THis might be good for RPG puposes.

From the way the rules appear to work, the Connie looks like it will wind up taking about 3-5 times the damage of the Galaxy Class in a fight anyway, so the relative abiltiy to soak up damage seems okay.

Hmm, maybe I'll take a crack and wrting CODA stats for the space Beetle. :D

What tony said...

"If you don't like it, change it" is not about getting flawed rules out in a hurry, it's about ensuring the customer knows the game is flexible and that it's ok for them to change it. I still see this as one of the primary advantages of rpgs over board and computer games. And I like it - if something doesn't work with my version of the setting, I'll change it anyway, but it's nice to have backing from the designers.

Yes, some designers seem to use this as an excuse to avoid playtesting, but please don't generalise that to all of them. It's extremely unfair - the vast majority put a lot of effort into playtesting, and it shows. Not everyone trained on the Star Wars rpg team you know! (Or in the early White Wolf lines for that matter).

C5, you're right about the F-18, also the F-16, F-117, B-2, and any other aircraft with "fly by wire" controls. They are designed to be aerodynamically unstable, making them more maneuverable, but they would need superhuman reflexes and piloting skills to fly straight and level. So a computer program flies the plane and the pilot's controls tell the computer what he wants the plane to do. Without the computer, those planes would be totally unflyable.

Back to the topic, I suggest we start referring to the Constitution class as "Old Ironsides". :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarge
Back to the topic, I suggest we start referring to the Constitution class as "Old Ironsides". :D

---

Well, maybe the Constitution herself. For the Enterprise, I always liked the mess-hall nickname mentioned in the ST2 novelization--"the flying deathtrap." No doubt that was coined as the last mortal act of a redshirted ensign. :D

Don / Tony,

Where in my posts on this forum have I ever said my way or the highway? All I did was post a dissenting opinion...

For very point you make about why it should have more or less hull structure, I can provide a counter point. Rules or no rules...

How did you come up the fact that I am using "fictional" numbers? People have 3D modelled these ships and when properly scaled against one another, one can generate starship volume numbers?

I am not looking to be a jerk, but am offering a different opinion on starship combat (not roleplaying).

Thanks for making me feel like my opinion has value...

Later!
Art

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Thanks tonyg; you've voiced some of the reasoning better than I could have.

One thing to point out (and one reason I was shy about posting any stats without the rules, because people like NeghVar would crap a warp core) is that Structure is dictated by Size, but that is only one piece of the calculation. There are other ways to increase/decrease Structure. In the case of the Constitution, where there was excess space left over, some of that was put into Traits and others into increasing the vessel's Structure. This also meshed well with what we saw on screen, with Kirk's Enterprise being blasted and thrown around every week. ("She canna take much more, Captain!")

Fast forward to the Galaxy--a vessel overflowing with systems and weapons and all your space is used up, unable to bolster your Structure. Again, not entirely unrealistic, as Picard's Enterprise was constantly being crippled by lesser ships, the Ferengi, and lest we forget a certain D-12 Bird of Prey blasting it to bits.

Quote (fictional) figures and tonnage all you'd like, but we're not trying to simulate starships in a wind tunnel and measuring the density of electron-bonded duranium--we're trying to recreate the excitement of Star Trek as seen on the small and large screen in a fast-paced RPG setting. Something much easier to talk about than to actually make happen.

I think we made it happen. :) You all will get to be the judges of that. And, as we're always fond of saying in this industry, "if you don't like it--change it. It's your game."

So you go right on quoting figures, NeghVar, if that's what you think Star Trek role-playing is about. ;) Carry on. :)

---

NeghVar,

I can't speak for Don. Just myself.

I have no poblem with you having an opion and voicing it. Nor, do I have a problem if you don't agree with me on this (or practially any other) topic.

You asked "how" a Constitution-class starship could have more struture points than a Galaxy-class despite the relative differences in size. I just posted some ways how. Personally, I would expeect the Galaxy to have more SP, but can see how it might not.

I didn't decalre that it must. be one way or another. Considering that we are talking about a science fiction TV seriesnoted for playing a bit loose with science for the sake of story, there isn't too much than can be definatly stated.


Oh, BTW. No, I don't thing building material technolgy would advance at the same pace as weapons technolgy. It hasn't in the past, and doesn't look like it happen in TREK either. But even if it did, there is question of would it be practical to use it. It may well be that reforcing the larger craft in proportion to the samller one may not be feasable.



As for the numbers thing. That's due to your use of the word "cannon". According to Paramount, and accepted by the fans, only those things that are on-screen are "cannon". Anything else, even if it was written by someone involved with one or more of the Star Trek series, isn't considered cannon. This is becuase many books, fan publications, magazines, and novels have information and technical data, and much of it is condtradictory. For instance, most sources for TOS, ncluding the writers guidlines and Gene Roddenberry's series concept list the mass of the Enterpirse at around 300,000 mt. But the "cannon" refernce to the ship's mass that was given on-screen was "close a million tons". THis means that there are actually very few "cannon" numbers available for our use. If there were, things would be much easier for game designers and gamers.

By stating that you got the values from "cannon" sources, you naturualy sparked intrest. If you do have such values, we all would love to see them. Chances are, said numbers, aren't actually "cannon" at all.

Hey, based-upon what usually happens on Star Trek when a ship does get hit with it shield down, I say that even ICON's SP numbers were rather generous. One hit in a good spot seems to be able to take any ship.

Tony,

Please go back and reread my post on this topic...no where have I used the term "canon." I have directed people to data found either in episodes (canon), books (which are semi-canon), and to other websites where Trek Tech is discussed or presented (a mix of canon).

I understand full well what the terms "canon," "semi-canon," and "non-canon." mean.

I do not want this thread to become a flame war...I PM'd Don regarding this issue and can also be contacted through email. I would prefer that we hash it out there...

Later!
Art
artbraune @ aol.com

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyg
NeghVar,

I can't speak for Don. Just myself.

I have no poblem with you having an opion and voicing it. Nor, do I have a problem if you don't agree with me on this (or practially any other) topic.

You asked "how" a Constitution-class starship could have more struture points than a Galaxy-class despite the relative differences in size. I just posted some ways how. Personally, I would expeect the Galaxy to have more SP, but can see how it might not.

I didn't decalre that it must. be one way or another. Considering that we are talking about a science fiction TV seriesnoted for playing a bit loose with science for the sake of story, there isn't too much than can be definatly stated.

Oh, BTW. No, I don't thing building material technolgy would advance at the same pace as weapons technolgy. It hasn't in the past, and doesn't look like it happen in TREK either. But even if it did, there is question of would it be practical to use it. It may well be that reforcing the larger craft in proportion to the samller one may not be feasable.

As for the numbers thing. That's due to your use of the word "cannon". According to Paramount, and accepted by the fans, only those things that are on-screen are "cannon". Anything else, even if it was written by someone involved with one or more of the Star Trek series, isn't considered cannon. This is becuase many books, fan publications, magazines, and novels have information and technical data, and much of it is condtradictory. For instance, most sources for TOS, ncluding the writers guidlines and Gene Roddenberry's series concept list the mass of the Enterpirse at around 300,000 mt. But the "cannon" refernce to the ship's mass that was given on-screen was "close a million tons". THis means that there are actually very few "cannon" numbers available for our use. If there were, things would be much easier for game designers and gamers.

By stating that you got the values from "cannon" sources, you naturualy sparked intrest. If you do have such values, we all would love to see them. Chances are, said numbers, aren't actually "cannon" at all.

---

I think Don is taking it as a personal attack because I called a concept he designed silly. When Tonyg asked him for additional previews, Don said that he wouldn't because he didn't want to attract criticism.

The tone at Decipher has been : "if you are good, we'll give you previews but if you are naughty you won't get squat". As if giving us previews and tidbits of info is a privilege. Newsflash : We the consumers chosing to spend our hard-earned cash on their products is a privilege that we confer to them. I think Decipher could use some competetion. They do it for the ST video games; whereas several companies can produce ST games; why not for RPGs?

I'm starting to think that these boards are becoming, hum, "overpolite". It is one thing to post childish stuff like : "I don't agree with you hence you're an idiot, you stink and your mother is ugly" which I see a lot on other boards but thankfully not here. But it is getting to the point where voicing disagrement is interpreted as a personal attack.

I'm not going to argue again about a damn stat. People here love the concept of older ships being sturdier than the new ones. If the bulk of the customers think so then obviously Negh Var and I are wrong from a design point of view. If most people also want the new system to have a Federation shuttlecraft beat the crap out of a Romulan Warbird than that's cool. I'm just glad they're not handling the SW:RPG. At least the Millenium Falcon does not have more SI than the Super Star Destroyer. "But Doktor Evil, the Millenium Falcon took quite a beating and..."

If you look at the U.S.S. Voyager, that must be THE ship in sci-fi history that took the most pounding. I wonder how it will be handled.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doktor Evil
I think Don is taking it as a personal attack because I called a concept he designed silly. When Tonyg asked him for additional previews, Don said that he wouldn't because he didn't want to attract criticism.

---

Wrong on both counts. I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth.

1) I did not take it as a personal attack. You made your concerns. I (and others) have tried to provide an alternate viewpoint. I then went into detail as to how the figures that you have issues with were yielded. You continued to complain about said numbers. I saw no further point of discussion on my point (I wasn't going to change your mind and the rules aren't going to change), so I let it go. Pretty simple, actually. :)

2) I told tonyg that I wouldn't do additional previews because I was unwilling to explain a system in detail that went through extensive development and playtesting just to allay a handful of fears over figures that no one has a concept of what they represent when taken in consideration with the whole. I am a very busy man. As much as I'd like to reiterate 30K words on starship operations and construction, I just can't.

If you don't understand, or refuse to agree with, my reasoning, that's your prerogative.

Thank you.

Y'know, I think the problem is that most people have been waiting on Decipher to release the game for so long that thy're becoming jaded ...they start seeing reasons for the delay that may or may not true, and see what they perceive as "errors" or "inconsistencies" in the details of the game that have been released ... and start taking out their frustrations on anything/anyone associated with Decipher.

Let me ask ... if you're going to nitpick the system, have you seen it in its entirety? If not, how CAN you form an informed opinion?

This has been said before by better men, but it bears repeating:

Instead on making assumptions about the details of the CODA rules, why not just wait until the game is released, then read the rules therein. If something still doesn't seem to make sense, THEN question it here or elsewhere.

Supposition and assumptions are almost always wrong to some degree.

Don and the other people involved in this game ARE very busy people who actually believe that there is a need and market for a new Star trek game. While I can't speak for Don, I don't think it's too far off the mark to say he's in it because of his love of Trek.

If you don't like the way things are shaping up with the Decipher game, then don't buy it... or hey, if you think you've got a better way, even before you see just how Don et al have approached the RPG concept, then why not create your own game? If it's good and makes logical sense, I'm sure someone will play it.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting. I just think that there's no point in arguing over the niggling details without knowing the overall framework ... let's be patient and adopt a "wait-and-see" attitude, shall we?

In an earlier post here, Toadkiller noted that you can always use the Spacedock rules for creating ships... they're not perfect, but they're a lot more detailed, taking into account so many if the nitty-gritties that go into a ship in ways that the ICON (and, likely, CODA) doesn't account for in the interest of a) space b) game cost c) playability (game drama vs. real life). I'm sure that once the Decipher game is out, Don and Steve Long, along with everyone else involved with Spacedock, will work to provide rules/guidelines for converting CODA ships to Spacedock and vice versa.

Negh'Var and I are not judging the system based on that tidbit. You confuse us with those cry-babies that can't wait a couple of months for an RPG to come out. I don't see any correlation between the two.

The game is coming out in a few weeks. I'll look at it, if I think it is worth my 50 Canadian bucks I'll buy it. Given that the LUG folks designed the game, and with the LOTR preview and the other ST preview we were given, chances are that I'll buy it at 99.999%. Never mind that Constitution hull strength stuff. But would it be the case that most stats about everyting and anything are screwed up like that, which I think would be near-impossible, I wouldn't spend 2 bucks on the stuff. I'm talking here Ferengi that are more resilient than Klingons, Bolians having higher PSI stats than the Betazoid, ships like the K'tinga having more firepower than the Defiant, laughing Vulcans, and of course the Galaxy being more frail once shields fail than the Constitution ;)

As for creating our own games, we have. Not RPGs but still.
Negh'Var designed from the ground-up a very impressive Star Trek table-top wargame. His work is posted on a Yahoo group. He was able to follow canon and create a great wargame on its own. I have designed conversion rules for a generic wargame called Full Thrust. I too follow canon 100% and I used many stats and ideas from Steve Long's Spacedock.

Lastly, who says we wanted to make things more complicated?? That has nothing to do with the Constitution hull thing. Talk about the rotting corpse of an horse beaten to death...