Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2018, 06:51 AM   #31
mlangsdorf
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

Your ship designs are missing their 2 core sections and middle and rear hulls.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com
mlangsdorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2018, 07:53 AM   #32
munin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vermont, USA
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

I'll add one of my house rule options: Compact Systems. Sometimes 20 "slots" just isn't enough for some concepts, or you're willing to pay for more features. Cost is a Spaceships-friendly extrapolation of the Compact option for computers (UT23) and the Expensive option for equipment (UT15):

Miniaturization and engineering advances can allow systems to occupy smaller spaces without reducing their capabilities. A Compact system occupies a smaller system slot (see Smaller Systems, GURPS Spaceships 7: Divergent and Paranormal Tech, pp. 4-5), but provides the same benefit as a standard-sized system. The GM decides which Compact systems are available in the setting.

Compact systems become available one TL after the standard system becomes available (e.g., Force Screens are TL11, so Compact Force Screens are TL12). If a system’s statistics vary with TL, a Compact system uses the statistics of a system one TL behind (e.g., a TL11 Compact Standard Reactionless Engine provides only the 0.5G acceleration of a TL10 Standard Reactionless Engine).

A Compact high-energy system has the power point requirements of a standard high-energy system. A Compact system has the workspaces of a smaller system. Despite being one SM smaller than usual, a Compact system costs three times as much as a standard system (i.e., a Compact system in an SM+7 slot provides the capabilities of an SM+8 system and costs three times as much as an SM+8 system).

Some systems require special treatment:

Control Room or Sapient Brain: A spacecraft with a Compact Control Room or Compact Sapient Brain has no penalty to its Handling or Stability Rating (or DX for a Sapient Brain). A Compact Control Room has the control stations of a smaller system.

Power Plants: A Compact Power Plant system provides power points which can power a standard-sized system, a compact system, or three smaller systems.

ST-Based Systems: Compact systems whose capabilities are based on the spacecraft’s ST – such as Maw, Robot Arm, and Tail systems – use the spacecraft’s standard ST.

Banned Systems: Armor, Reaction Engines, and systems with mass or occupant capacities – including Cargo Hold, Digestive System, Engine Room, Fuel Tank, Habitat, Hangar Bay, Jump Gate, Open Space, and Passenger Seating systems – can be Smaller but cannot be Compact. The GM might allow systems with mass rate capacities, such as Mining, Factory, and Refinery systems, to be Compact. A Compact Comm/Sensor Array determines its array level as if it were one TL less, which provides no benefit over simply using a cheaper Smaller system.
munin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2018, 06:27 PM   #33
mlangsdorf
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorenant View Post
I didn't knew exactly how to handle Compact, do I double the CF (Compact Genius computer is worth +248 CF)?
So it's supposed to be a compact system of one greater SM, but it's only the computer, not the full control system. I arbitrarily decided half the cost of a control room was the computer and adjusted the CF. So a compact computer should cost twice as much as half a control room, or as much as a control room.

So for an SM +5 ship with a compact computer, apply the normal CF mods to a SM +6 control room.

Quote:
Also, is it possible to have an engine that occupies two slots and say it's a single thing (like Spinal Battery)?
Sure, but it's probably better to say that damage reduces performance than to have the entire thing conk out when one of the systems is destroyed. Having only one system destroyed take out both sections would be a good way to represent a fragile and temperamental engine that has less HP than normal for it's weight.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com
mlangsdorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2018, 09:54 PM   #34
YankeeGamer
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

As I'm looking at options, I see one very useful, and, IMVHO, important and realistic modification.

Each turret has a specific amount that you get back if you put, for example, only 3 tertiary guns in place. That's the weight of the weapon emplacement.

Well, even BIG ships will use small guns; the Iowa class battleships used the same 20 mm Oikerlons for point defense that destroyers did.

I think that a section could be equipped with MUCH smaller weapons than the size class of the ship supports in the rules, with the rest cargo, or reaction mass, or whatever. Thus, a SM +15 ship could still have LOTS of guns suitable as secondary guns on a SM +5 ship, creating a forrest of fire for shooting at fighters and missiles.
YankeeGamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 06:55 AM   #35
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YankeeGamer View Post
I think that a section could be equipped with MUCH smaller weapons than the size class of the ship supports in the rules, with the rest cargo, or reaction mass, or whatever. Thus, a SM +15 ship could still have LOTS of guns suitable as secondary guns on a SM +5 ship, creating a forrest of fire for shooting at fighters and missiles.
Note that if you are at a reasonably high relative speed(to get through enemy armor) then massed small guns will be devastating due to the low number of hitpoints that large structures have in GURPS. Thus a dreadnaught armed with large drives/fuel tanks and huge number of small auto cannon will be extremely devastating.

Also note that massed small weapons will strip enemy ship shields away in no time making shields basically useless.
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 07:27 AM   #36
mlangsdorf
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YankeeGamer View Post
As I'm looking at options, I see one very useful, and, IMVHO, important and realistic modification.

Each turret has a specific amount that you get back if you put, for example, only 3 tertiary guns in place. That's the weight of the weapon emplacement.

Well, even BIG ships will use small guns; the Iowa class battleships used the same 20 mm Oikerlons for point defense that destroyers did.

I think that a section could be equipped with MUCH smaller weapons than the size class of the ship supports in the rules, with the rest cargo, or reaction mass, or whatever. Thus, a SM +15 ship could still have LOTS of guns suitable as secondary guns on a SM +5 ship, creating a forrest of fire for shooting at fighters and missiles.
I gave an example here http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=17 of a battleship, cruiser, and escort where the battleship uses a tertiary battery to mount the same guns that the escort mounts in 6 secondary batteries. You could extend that indefinitely, with each gun slot in a tertiary battery holding 3x or 10x of SM -1 or SM -2 ship's tertiary battery.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com
mlangsdorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 07:45 AM   #37
ericbsmith
 
ericbsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA. Near the river Styx in the 5th Circle.
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YankeeGamer View Post
I think that a section could be equipped with MUCH smaller weapons than the size class of the ship supports in the rules, with the rest cargo, or reaction mass, or whatever.
That would be why I included such rules in my Spaceship Design Spreadsheet. Since the number of mounts in a battery and weapon size both scale directly with ship size it's simple to calculate the stats for smaller weapons. I also included rules for mounting Mixed Mounts (a mix of multiple weapon mount sizes, so you don't 100,00 Denary mounts or leave 99,000 of them uninstalled and converted to cargo).

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
Note that if you are at a reasonably high relative speed(to get through enemy armor) then massed small guns will be devastating due to the low number of hitpoints that large structures have in GURPS. Thus a dreadnaught armed with large drives/fuel tanks and huge number of small auto cannon will be extremely devastating.

Also note that massed small weapons will strip enemy ship shields away in no time making shields basically useless.
These are probably quite realistic, but also could be undesirable. One of the ways to avoid the problems with shields is to assume that an attack that doesn't penetrate the shields doesn't weaken it, but that just shifts the problem slightly up the scale where you need to have weapons of a certain size to reliably penetrate the shields of of a ship of a given size, and once the shields start getting warn away they will be penetrated more and stirpped quicker.

The one realistic thing that will help in any situation is to keep out of range of the smaller gun batteries. In a realistic spaceship battle the capital ships will likely fire at each other with missiles and main batteries at very long ranges, only getting close enough to maintain sensor contact and stay within range of their own main weapon batteries.
__________________
Eric B. Smith GURPS Data File Coordinator
GURPSLand
The future keeps telling us what the past was about. You make the past mean different things by what you do with the time that comes after.
ericbsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 08:38 AM   #38
RogerBW
 
RogerBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: near London, UK
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YankeeGamer View Post
I think that a section could be equipped with MUCH smaller weapons than the size class of the ship supports in the rules, with the rest cargo, or reaction mass, or whatever. Thus, a SM +15 ship could still have LOTS of guns suitable as secondary guns on a SM +5 ship, creating a forrest of fire for shooting at fighters and missiles.
See the "Smaller Systems" rules in Spaceships 7 and 8.
RogerBW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2018, 12:45 AM   #39
ericbsmith
 
ericbsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA. Near the river Styx in the 5th Circle.
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerBW View Post
See the "Smaller Systems" rules in Spaceships 7 and 8.
Smaller. Seriously, a ship like the Enterprise could mount hundreds Anti-Air/Point Defense batteries. The reimagined Battlestar Galactica seems to have done so.

To me, there's really two cures for this issue. The first is to have much smaller weapon battery mount available, but the second is to have Mixed Batteries, so that a SM+15 ship doesn't have to mount 300,000 point-defense weapons or leave most of the battery mostly empty as Cargo Hold. By using the idea of a mixed battery you could slice up a single Weapon Battery into numerous sizes of weapon mounts, allowing a mix of the smallest Point Defense weapons, some smallish Missiles, some larger Missiles and Anti-Air, and maybe even a couple Medium or Secondary weapons. Since the weapon sizes all scale on a 3/10/100 progression it's not that hard to slice up a weapon battery like that to maximize usefulness.
__________________
Eric B. Smith GURPS Data File Coordinator
GURPSLand
The future keeps telling us what the past was about. You make the past mean different things by what you do with the time that comes after.
ericbsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2018, 10:23 AM   #40
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericbsmith View Post
Smaller. Seriously, a ship like the Enterprise could mount hundreds Anti-Air/Point Defense batteries. The reimagined Battlestar Galactica seems to have done so.
s.
The Enterprise doesn't have any use for oint defense batteries. You can't use those on warp missiles which is what their Photon Torpedoes are. I think the nBSG Galactca had less than one Tertiary Battery.

Now, the Death Star had more small gun mounts than could be reasonably counted but other than that you probably need to go to some sort of anime ship fr the example you want.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
spaceships

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.