Galaxy Class Starship

[tonyg]

Hmm,

I guess it's agood thing that CODA did use mutiple -weapons rather than arrays. SInce the new starship system doesn't use postions and movement, the "Gameboard" has no dimensions, and you always need to dimension arrays.

[Red Alert, standby for return fire!]

[Doktor Evil]

I agree with the premise of the general principle : the system has to work in a RPG context; attempting to adapt a wargame-flavoured system on a RPG game, especially with a setting like ST, would be a risky attempt. Besides, we'll have the RPG system for the RPG and a true wargame system to really simulate battles. This is very much like the old FASA system, and I'll bet that Engage will be 'usable' for the RPG for those who want to really detail out their RPG ship battles.

I'm glad to hear that the general weapon systems (beams, torpedoes) have been distinguished from one another. Without having to bother about how to place the player's ship relative to the enemy, the weapon arcs, ranges, etc the shift will be placed on the -effects- of the system, not the mechanics. Well, that's the right way to go for an RPG system. That's why I think that the SW RPG ship combat system isn't actually that bad (it's not great either ).

Now, I'm still skeptical about that Structural point thing, but I'll reserve final judgement for when I'll get the book(s).

[darkwing duck1]

About the issue of Galaxy vs Constitution superstructure...I think it's cool that the Connies have more superstructure. If superstructure can be considered a measure of how "tough" a ship is...well, think about how many times Kirk's Enterprise took a hellacious pounding and Scotty had her up and around for the next episode on his own. It seemed like every time Picard's Enterprise D hit a speck of space dust they were putting into a starbase for repair/refit.

[Doktor Evil]

Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's make the hull strength of a Borg cube lesser than the Constitution's. That will make even more sense.

[tonyg]

Evil,

If there were evidence in TREK to suggest it, I would. With the BORG there are certain things about thier ship designs (no decible sections), self-replairing ships, ability to adapt to weapons, that make them something of a unqiue case.


As for the Galaxy class, according to the TECH MAN the ship can't hold together without the SIF even at rest. It mighe be more massive, but not neceasily more durable than a Constitution class.

Think of a new Aircraft carrier as opposed to a WWII battleship. The aircraft carrier is certainly the better ship, superior in nearly every way, but the old battleship can take a heck of a lot more pounding.

Sort of like a 2002 Corvette vs. a 1962 Aston Martin DB-V. The corvette is faster, handles better, and can outperferom the Astomn in nearly every way. If the two collide the two ton DB-V will shatter the fiberglass body of the technolgically superior corvette.

Of course with TREK, the advances in weapons and shield technology would more than offset this.

[NeghVar]

Tony...

I agree to disagree...

How can a ship with a volume of 234,928 cubic meters (Constitution class) have a larger hull structure than a ship with a volume of 5,820,983 cubic meters (Galaxy class)? I also find it hard to believe that the SIF was not calculated into the hull structure values? Wouldn't you think that building materials would increase at a similar pace to weapons technology?

More here on starship volumes (thanks Nob!):
http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultima...6;t=001501;p=1

Later!
Art

[tonyg]

NeghVar,

Somethines it's fun to disagree. Here is how an why the Constitution Class could have more struture points than a Galxazy class. Note I put could, not does.

Remember than bigger doesn't always mean stronger. Again carriers and battleships come to mind, or in your terms of volume consider a 223,928 cubic meter block of titanium to a 5,820,983 cublic meter block of ice. And remember overal size isn't an indication of internal structure. It could be a solid block of titnaium and a hollow block of ice. Mass/voulme (kg/m^3), would be a better indication of structual strength.


Neither mass nor volume necessarily equal to greater ability to withstand damage. Keep in mind that a larger mass has a greater potential (stored) energy. It also required greater mass/structural ability just to keep together. Thats why:

1) An ant will suffer less "damage" than a human from a 10 foot fall in 1G. Even in a vacuum.

2) As you increase the size of a being or structure, you loose efficeny.the mass reaches a point where the legs cannot support it. The Square/Cubed law. With humans this means that after a certain point the legs cannot support the mass. With structures it means that it takes more and more support material just to keep the thing functional.

3) As more advanced tech is used to support a structure, anfd get around this problem the more the structure become more vulnerable to catastophic failure should that tech be somehow impaired. That's why demoliton teams need realtively little explosives to take down most modern building compared to, say some still standing from the middle ages. The less advanced design is more rugged, since no one really needs a home that can wisthstand seige enignes these days. The larger structe can have more volume and mass but need less damage to destroy it.

4) A 6 ton elepehant has 30 times the mass of a 200 lb man, and probably about 30 times the volume as well, but can't take 30 times the damage. If you managed to trip both of them (hypothetically speaking, of course), the elephant has a much beeter chance of breaking one of it's more structually sound legs than does the 200 pound man.

[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.

[Sea Tyger]

...but we're not trying to simulate starships in a wind tunnel and measuring the density of electron-bonded duranium...

NeghVar --

If you are interested in the above, the 4th Ed. Traveller sourcebook Fire, Fusion and Steel provides you with some serious math-intensive design rules. While it doesn't give you Trek ships, it does give you an excellent idea on what it takes to put a ship together.

[tonyg]

Yah FF&S is very good. And unlike TREK the ship designs make some sense. For instance in the real world engineers design things to do a bit more than is needed for normal operation.

THat way ten story building don't fall down when a bird lands on the roof, with a few unexpected ounces of stress. And people down't burn thier houses down by switch from 60 to 75 watt bulbs.


One good thing about CODA is with no power allocation we don't have worry about running out of shield power becuase someone on Deck 6 turned on the lights in the bathroom, or replicated a cup of tea.

[Doktor Evil]

"if you don't like it--change it. It's your game."

we would have also accepted : "if you don't like it--don't buy it. It's your money."

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. Might as well design a whole new game from the ground-up. With all the computer resources one can get access to nowadays you can produce a game (or book, etc) that almost look professional.

On topic : with ST (or with most movies or TV series) you have to remember that if the writers decide that element X can trash element Y, then so be it. People keep referring to the D-12 in Generations. If the writers wanted to, they could have used a runabout to kick the Enterprise-D, it doesn't matter. Everything is related to the necessities of drama. The writers don't really care about consistency, but about the effects. To paraphrase Steve Long, what if one week a torpedo volley barely scratches the paint off a ship then the following week a single hit causes the same ship to explode?

Now, if you were doing a show that is more reality-based, you'd avoid these kind of inconsitencies. Even Horatio Hornblower couldn't sink a fleet of French vessels with a small gunboat.

As for the Constitution being sturdier than the Galaxy, that is all opinion. There is no right or wrong in any sci-fi conjectural matter, save for any official word from TPTB (as if THAT would happen...). And often, those perceptions are tainted by being fan of something in particular. I prefer the Romulans over the Klingons, ergo the D'Deridex MUST be a better ship than the Vor'Cha. See, things like that. Those TOS-Movie era fans will love the fact that the Consitution has more SI than the Galaxy.

Don, you said that because of the way the LUG rules were designed you thought that the Miranda was too powerful, and it produced a silly result. I think that the Constitution with more SI than the Galaxy is in that category of silliness. And I'm saying so because I *think* that most people would agree with me. Now, I could be completely wrong and actually, 75% of the people who will buy the game will think that it is the greatest concept since sliced bread. I am pointing it out because there may be some more "interesting" tidbits like that that could be detrimental to the game. We could later find out that TOS hand phasers are actually more accurate than the TNG-era ones, etc.

[tonyg]

Evil,

I agree that Drama is Drama, and agree with the concept of having an RPG make more sense. But you can't judge the reative combat abilties of the two vessels by Struture Points alone. Sort of like trying to do the same in D&D based on Hit Points, without taking into account attACK, DAMAGE, AC, or number of attack per round.

Those differences in Penestration, Shield and Threshold values might make all the difference.

There is nothing that really states than a Galaxy class starship should have more strual points than a Constitution class. All cannon evidence just shows them making bigger fireballs unless a regular character or special guest star is aboard. Heck, the REAL reason why tose Constitution-class ships were so durable in TOS was becuase they didn't have CGI yet, and couldn't afford to trash the model.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Doktor Evil
we would have also accepted : "if you don't like it--don't buy it. It's your money."

Call me silly but I think you should at least look at the system, perhaps even play it, before implying that it's junk. That's just me, however.

On topic : with ST (or with most movies or TV series) you have to remember that if the writers decide that element X can trash element Y, then so be it. ... To paraphrase Steve Long, what if one week a torpedo volley barely scratches the paint off a ship then the following week a single hit causes the same ship to explode?

Thank you for further supporting our position that it is more cinematic and in the interest of drama and role-playing, not gross tonage or Structure figures, that should dictate starship battles.

Those TOS-Movie era fans will love the fact that the Consitution has more SI than the Galaxy.

I'm laughing out loud at this. The fans are in camps now, fighting over the best ships? They're all built using the same rules!

I think that the Constitution with more SI than the Galaxy is in that category of silliness.

As is your right. I'm not faulting you. My earlier messages were attempting to enlighten others as to how those numbers came to be. You appear to not be concerned with this--instead you just want to complain about the "silliness" of the numbers. (Again, as is your right.)

Seeing how I find it unlikely to change your opinion and we don't appear to have anything further to discuss, I'll leave you to it.

[Doktor Evil]

Call me silly but I think you should at least look at the system, perhaps even play it, before implying that it's junk. That's just me, however.

Hey wait! I never said the system was junk... like I say for any movie : I'll judge it when I see it. I was refering to the fact that RPG designers all over (and video games designers for that matter) always think that if a product is flawed or incomplete or whatever then the consumer can always buy an upgrade, change some variables himself, etc. Actually, if anyone should feel targeted it's folks like the good people at WOTC who made that wonderful piece of merde called the SW:RPG, which I had to fork out 50+$ Canadian bucks to acquire. Hey, life in Canada is expensive.

As constructive criticism, RPG designers should refrain using the expression "if you don't like it change it". It implies that they acknowledge that something is wrong with the rules, or that they haven't been very thorough. You're much better off saying stuff like : "we've made sure to research this thoroughly and balance everything, etc but if for some reason you feel that... etc"

The worst criticism I can think of about LUG Trek were the minor typos. Not too shabby! And since the former LUG staff is doing this new RPG, things look swell.

Thank you for further supporting our position that it is more cinematic and in the interest of drama and role-playing, not gross tonage or Structure figures, that should dictate starship battles.

I'm not here to win an argument. I want to read what people think, regardless of what I think. As I said there is no right or wrong, only opinions; all of them are valuable.

I'm laughing out loud at this. The fans are in camps now, fighting over the best ships? They're all built using the same rules!

I see that happen sometimes. Some people are so enamored with certain aspects of ST that they'll design things without any concern for balance or context. I remember a Romulan ship design (was it?) under the old LUG rules that was posted by a Romulan fan and that got pulled by Don for being excessive.

You appear to not be concerned with this--instead you just want to complain about the "silliness" of the numbers

Well, in the end what matters is that the people who will buy the books will be happy. If they are, and we'll know on the boards, then you guys did your job. Those who worked on LUG Trek did that, and I'd bet money (which I don't have ) that it is likely the same will occur again.

[C5]

Well, personnally, I'm a big TNG-era fan (and I could even add : a TOS-hater, but that wouldn't be entirely true), yet I'm not bugged at all by the Constitution having more structural points than the Galaxy.

Tonyg's example about the Corvette and the Aston Martin is perfectly valid for me. With new technologies appearing, priorities change and designs must evolve accordingly. Hey, starship designers try to make the best use of their technology : if they are not quite sure how much can a shield hold, they sure'll want to strenghten their hull, while they won't hesitate to weaken it to stuff more system on board should a better shield design be discovered.
Besides, this is coherent with our current evolution of technology; I think I recall reading somewhere that, without its electronic systems, a current air fighter (like the F-18) would be unable to fly at all... and a reaction fighter without its engines will simply fall, while a WW2 fighter will be able to dive for some time.

Another thing : apart from being required by the scenario, don't forget that the Bird of Prey was able to destroy the Ent-D because it could bypass their shields. TNG ships seem to rely much more on their shields than in TOS (to the point that a ship without shields is almost dead already). In DS9, Odo in a runabout could destroy a Jem'Hadar battleship once he found a window in their shields (always found that a bit stupid BTW, but hey, it's canon as well).