[Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I've finally decided to check Spaceships and I must admit it's better than what I thought (though I still need to get my head around the combat system) but one thing stood out for me: All systems have same capacity. For example, you can't pay more for a better Control Room with higher Complexity, get some Jet Engine that costs 2x but is 1.5x better than an ordinary one, or pay premium to get better handling.
Does one of the other books of the Spaceships line or some Pyramid article covers this?

Edit: By the way, does incoming missiles counts as streamlined?

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I'm going to answer those questions in reverse order.

Missiles are indeed streamlined - check the SM for targeting them against their weight, and you'll see this is the case.

Better handling can be had - but it has a mass (and monetary) cost associated with it, and only works in atmosphere. The relevant system is the Maneuver Enhancement, from Spaceships 7.

For the engines, while some of the other books have plenty of additional options, about the only way to pay more to get better performance is if you're able to pay extra to get something of a higher TL.

A better Control Room, I'm not sure about. My gut reaction would be to work out what computer would be included by default in it, then apply modifiers to that. For example, using TL 9 and SM+10, the C7 of the Control Room is doable with a 400 lb, $100K computer (a Mainframe). You could spend an extra $900K and sacrifice 3600 lb of cargo space to upgrade that to a Macroframe (total $1M and 4000 lb), or just spend extra cash to the tune of $1.9M (end cost $2M) to upgrade your Mainframe to Fast, in either case getting C8 instead of only C7.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

There is an exception tot he lack of "upgrades". Some settings can have "Super" FTL units that give the sort of bonus you're talking about.

Mostly though, superior performance comes from choosing a different technology though that almost always will cost more.

There are some more systems in (I think) 4 for SM+4 fighter types and 7 for stranger and anachronistic tech.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

As mentioned, there's not much provisions in Spaceships for systems that are just better than standard, without going up a full TL. However, there are some reasonably simple house rules you can use. I've used these before in a couple of games with space travel, and they've worked pretty well.

First, if you figure your setting is reasonably close to the next TL, or you've got characters with appropriate invention skills and advantages (like Gadgeteer), you can allow them to buy or build prototype versions of the next TL's systems. Usually, these will have bugs or flaws, which can be used to keep them under control, and provide adventure hooks. For engines, a good flaw is "functions about half-way between this TL and the next in effectiveness". For example, if you're at TL 10 and have standard reactionless drives, you could allow the ship to have prototype TL 11 standard reactionless drives, that produced 0.75 Gs of thrust per system, better than the TL 10 0.5 Gs, but not quite up to the full 1 G of "mature" TL 11.

Note that this approach is only barely a house rule anyway - it does basically fit into the standard rules for inventions and guidelines for what sort of tech should be available.

The next option is to allow systems to be optimized for certain tasks. For this, use the normal rules for equipment quality (p. B345) to apply to a specific skill roll usually made with that system, for the normal cost increases to the system. For instance, your engines could be optimized for emergency thrust tasks. For 20X their normal cost, they'd count as fine-quality equipment, giving +2 to anyone rolling the relevant repair skill for them to give more thrust.

In general, don't allow this to apply to rolls that are directly affected by the ship's stats already. For example, don't allow people to buy Fine control room systems to get a boost to handling, since that's already covered by the Maneuver Enhancement system that Varyon mentioned. Similarly, upgrading your guns to get better effective Acc should be disallowed. But specific subsets of such tasks are probably reasonable, like buying maneuver drives optimized to give bonuses in very tight quarters, or to improve vehicle Dodge only, or weapons specifically good at targeting a single class of ships.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Good to know, it's important for point defense.

Oh well, too bad there's no official ruling for this. Regardless, I like Kelly Pedersen's house rules, it's not as comprehensive as I wanted* but it's based on RAW which is very nice. Thanks for the help and suggestions, much appreciated!
*dST doesn't change with TL so you can't have make a spaceship, in fact a mecha, that is stronger than another of the same size like you often see in animes (eg GM vs Hygogg); Lack of option to improve sAcc from the hardware side makes it harder to distinguish specialty models like normal GM and GM Sniper (maybe give conventional guns to GMs and EM guns to Sniper?); There's no way to make a jet plane like Yukikaze (from Sentou Yousei Yukikaze) that comes with a small supercomputer onboard that hosts an almost volitional AI. Anyway, as Snoopy once said, you play with the cards you're dealt.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I think there are a couple of ship systems which have enhanced versions- comms/sensors, maybe power plants?, stardrives?

In any case, if you're seriously getting into ship design, I fully recommend the design spreadsheet, http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=62539, which supports heaps of optional rules, both published and those come up with by the spreadsheet designer, ericbsmith.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Here's my take:

TL8 spacecraft are built on such thin margins that worse equipment than standard is a collossal risk, and better equipment is exceedingly hard to find (at least in space-hardened grades). In essence, an upgrade significant enough to warrant a change in statistics calls for paying full price for an upgrade to TL9. And that's before you consider that most spacecraft are bespoke.

At higher TLs, spaceflight is developed enough that there is some variation in available tech. At TL10, only cutting-edge ships are made exclusively with TL10 components. Many ships use TL9 variants. They might be extremely recent designs, but they have essentially the same performance as they did in the previous tech level.

All of that said, as a GM I would still throw in the option to buy cheap, refurbished, or poorly-maintained ships which are statistically the same as others with the same loadout. The difference is 10% or more off the top, with the addition of quirks.

Said quirks could be anything from "The cargo holds are awkwardly shaped, take a -2 to orders to load or unload quickly," to "The reactors on this line were always tempermental. After any severe shock, roll HT to see if the cooling turbopumps jam." The discount probably varies more according to the personality of the seller than by the severity of the quirk(s).

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I borrowed a bit from 3rd edition Ultra Tech, etc and put Build Quality guidelines in my Spaceships House Rules.
If it saves you time...
Build Quality
Overall build
• HT±#, Reliability, HT bonus, +1 for +1 CF, +2 for +4 CF, HT penalty, -1 for -¼ CF, -2 for -½ CF.
• H±#, Handling, +1 for +1 CF or +2 for +4 CF; -1 for -¼ CF, -2 for -½ CF. Spaceship Limit ±5.
• S±#, Stability, +1 for +1 CF or +2 for +4 CF; -1 for -¼ CF, -2 for -½ CF. Spaceship Limit ±5.
• RB±# Styling: Reaction Bonus +1 for +1 CF, +2 for +4 CF, and +3 for +9 CF; Reaction Penalty -1 for -¼ CF, -2 for -½ CF.
Individual systems
• TL: Cutting Edge, performs as TL+1, CF+2; Experimental = TL+2, CF+9; eg drives get more δv, power-plants run longer.
• Quality: Good-Quality, Gives +1 to operation skill, or adds +1 to existing modifier +4 CF;
Fine-Quality, Gives +2 to operation skill, or adds +2 to existing modifier +19 CF.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

There are no special official rules for Spaceships on the improved things, but I think you could use the generic GURPS rules for better/worse equipment(things like Rugged, Expensive, Fine, Very Fine, Cheap and for computers all computer modifiers) and not break anything.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Some systems have improvements, some do not.

Take armor, for instance. Suppose you're in TL9 and you're deciding on armor for your ship. What do you choose? Easy, you say, advanced metallic laminate is the only armor available at TL9. Not so! That is just the latest form of armor available; the earlier forms are probably still going to be in use in older or less advanced ships. Consider the Star Flower-class tramp freighter on page 6 of GURPS Spaceships. It's TL11^, but it's got metallic laminate armor, which is TL8. You don't need the most advanced armor for a freighter; you go with something cheaper.

There are a bunch of systems that work this way. No, you can't improve your control room (it's just a room), but you CAN improve the communications and sensor array built into it.

The engine systems often have a list of options at the end of the text that let you improve them. For instance, a nuclear thermal rocket has an option to use water instead of hydrogen as fuel, to produce three times the thrust at a cost of one-third the delta-V.

So not every system has improvements available, but a lot of them do.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Another way to get varying levels of system performance is to use the rules for Smaller SM Systems from Spaceships 7 and just install some partial systems. Many systems do have a better performing version; Force Screens have Light & Heavy; FTL Drives have Super FTL Drives; Reactionless Drives have Standard, Hot, Super, and Subwarp. Other systems have non-linear upgrade options; rather than having a "better performing" system you simply switch to a better performing system of a similar type. You might go from a Fission Reactor to a Fusion Reactor to an Antimatter Reactor. Or from a Chemical Rocket to a HEDM Rocket. Or from a Fission Nuclear Thermal Rocket to a Fusion Rocket.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Thanks you all for the replies, I'm a little short on time today but tomorrow I'll have more time to read and consider all these suggestions more carefully to give a proper feedback.
Skimming through it, I particularly like ericbsmith's idea, using standard reactionless drive while cruising to avoid being detected by hostiles and switching to hot when the fight starts seems to be a great advantage.
I wanted the 4th book for the fighters and mechas but apparently I should get 7 next. I wish SJGames sold their lines in bundles with discount.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

You might also consider one of several Reaction Engines for when running "hot" - a few of the superscience ones outperform the Standard & Hot Reactionless Drive on thrust, and thus make a great secondary drive for combat or short bursts (such as landing and takeoff).

Spaceships 7 is definitely the best expansion of ship systems, although probably half of them are "weird" tech that you're not likely to use unless you're doing a "weird" tech game - orgone and mana engines, Skystone for airships, that kind of stuff. The other half is still outlier tech, but more generally useful to Sci-Fi; it also repeats the rule for Smaller SM Systems from Spaceships 4, which is one of the most useful rules expansions given the diversity it adds to creating spaceships.

Two other resources to consider are Pyramid #3/34 and Pyramid #3/40. #3/34 includes a rules expansion for realistic ground vehicles - Wheels & Tracks, Screw Propellers, Gasoline Turbines, etc. Pyramid #3/40 includes an expansion for Mecha & Robots which greatly enhances the rules from Spaceships 4. If you plan on making Mecha a central part of your game then it's well worth picking up. Pyramid #3/64 also includes a few other expansions for Age of Sail/Steam Tech.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I'm coming a little late to the discussion, but in addition to the suggestions already proposed, you could adapt I want to expand on weby's suggestion that you use the existing GURPS equipment quality rules to Spaceships and allow people to buy Fine, Very Fine, or Cheap Spaceship components.

As a general rule, a Fine component has +4 CF and 20% better performance than a standard component. A Very Fine component has +19 CF and 40% better performance than a standard component. A Cheap component has -0.2 CF and has 75% of the performance of a standard component. If a ship has multiple components of the same quality, sum up their performance modifier before rounding down.

So a SM+7 streamlined ship at TL9 with 3 front armor locations could do:
* TL8 metallic laminate for $900K and dDR 15
* TL9 cheap advanced metallic laminate for $1440K and dDR 16
* TL9 advanced metallic laminate for $1800K and dDR 21
* TL9 fine advanced metallic laminate for $9000K and dDR 25
* TL9 very fine advanced metallic laminate for $36000K and dDR 29

Cargo holds, control rooms, defensive ECM, engine rooms, external clamps, open spaces, ramscoops, soft land systems, and stasis webs do not have statistics that can be meaningfully modified by quality and can't be bought with quality in mind.

Some components should have special rules:
* Control rooms can have Fast, Genius, High-Capacity, or Slow computers, as per Ultra-tech p 23. As the computers are only part of the control room, the relevant CFs are +4, +124, +0.1, and -0.2, respectively.
* Sensor Arrays can be Fine (Sensitive) or Fine (Long-Ranged). Sensitive arrays add +1, or +2 for Very Fine, to skill rolls to use the Sensor, while Long-Ranged arrays increase their Active Sensor Range by +1 or +2 for Very Fine.
* Fine ramscoops begin operation at 1600 mps, and Very Fine ramscoops being operation at 1450 mps.
* Reaction engines can be either Fine (Accel) for a 20% improvement in acceleration or Fine (Efficient) for a 20% improvement in delta-V. Same for Very Fine and Cheap, but 40% improvement and -25% decrease, respectively. An engine can be Fine or Very Fine in one category or and Cheap in the other.
* Soft landing systems add their quality bonus to Piloting checks during at Atmospheric Landings (Spaceships p 40).
* Stealth Hull systems subtract their quality bonus from opposing checks to detect the sip.
* Weapon systems can be:
** Fine (Accuracy) at +4 CF and +1 sAcc, or Cheap (Accuracy) for -0.2 CF and -1 sAcc.
** Fine (Power) or Very Fine (Power) at +4 or +19 CF for +1 damage per 2 dice or +1 damage per die, respectively, or Cheap (Power) at -0.2 CF and -1 damage per 2 dice. Fine and Very Fine powered weapons also require 1.2 and 1.4 PPs, respectively.
** Medium, secondary, and tertiary batteries can by Very Fine (Compact) for +19 CF which lets them mount an additional +40% guns per battery.
** Secondary and tertiary batteries can be Fine (Compact) for +4 CF, which lets them mount an additional +20% guns per battery.

Any system that can be partially uninstalled for cargo space (habitats, weapon batteries, etc) should adjust the Uninstalled value by the opposite of the quality bonus: installing a single weapon system in a Very Fine (Compact) Tertiary Battery should not allow a ship to carry more cargo in that space than a cargo space could carry.

Putting this all together on the Star Flower (Spaceships 1 pp 6-7) as a customized variant with maximum performance:
Front Hull
1 Very fine diamondoid armor (dDR 24) $200M
2-5 Cargo holds (200 tons capacity) $0
6 Very Fine (Sensitive) tactical array $200M
[core] Control room with fast computer (C10): $10M

Central Hull
1 Very fine diamondoid armor (dDR 24) $200M
2, 3 Very Fine Habitats (17 cabins total capacity) $40M
4, 5 Cargo holds (200 tons capacity) $0
6! Very Fine (Power), Very Fine (Compact), Fine (Accurate) Medium battery (2 100 MJ Improved UV Lasers, 1 100 MJ anti-particle cannon and 1 10 MJ VRF improved UV laser) $264M

Rear Hull
1 Very fine diamondoid armor (dDR 24) $200M
2, 3! Very Fine hot reactionless drive (4.8 G accel) $120M
4, 5! Very Fine stardrive (FTL-2.4) $400M
6 Engine room $300K
[core] Very Fine fusion reactor $200M

Final price $1634.3M, nearly 37x as much as a stock Star Flower.

Compared to the stock Star Flower, it has 2.4x the acceleration in vacuum, 1.5x the velocity in air, and 3x as much armor. Where the stock Star Flower has a dinky 10 MJ laser with sAcc 0, Range S/L, RoF 1, and 4d dDmg, this version sports twin 100 MJ Improved UV lasers with sAcc 1, Range L, RoF 2 and 10d+10 dDmg, a 100 MJ anti-particle cannon with sAcc -2, Range S, RoF 1, and 10d+10 dDmg, and a 10 MJ Improved UV laser with sAcc 1, Range S/L, RoF 200, and 4d+4 dDmg.

Of course, that's taking the proposed system to extremes. But having a Dark Horse free trader (Spaceships 3, p 7) with Fine Super Reactionless engines would give the PCs a vehicle that's just a little better than the competition without completely breaking the bank.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Actually I did propose that above.. :)

Actually of those ECM has a thing that could be modified by quality: the resistance to Electronic Counter-Countermeasures (ECCM) Task (spaceships 3 p 25), but that does require the task to be in use of course.

Also a soft landing system could conceivably give a bonus to landings with it. Ramscoops(if you allow them to work), could have difference in how low velocity they can start working based on quality.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Sorry, weby, you did propose the same idea and I missed it.

Edited the post to include your suggestions.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Great spreadsheet, it's pretty extensive so it may take me a while to get used to it but it definitely seems useful. Among the optional rules, I particularly like semi-abrasive DR. One particular issue I had with this is the lack of option for making ground vehicles with solid armor, the default dDR values are understandable if you consider it's for aerospace application but it's almost like a paper on a tank (HT MBT has dDR 115 on SM+4). This coupled with the fractional DR should make it possible to make TL5+1 diesel-punkish tanks with iron armor and some weird locomotion.

I must admit I'm not very fun of buying High TL for the sole purpose of getting better parts for a ship. I don't mind paying more for something but High TL kinda implies your character is in general used to higher TL world, technical skills and all. Of couse I could ignore this but that sounds more like a kludge than a solution. A Perk or cheap advantage (2 points) in the line of High TL (Specific gear only) sounds nice, though.

Thanks for this, I'm not sure which one of yours or mark's (below) numbers are fairer but both helps me immensely.

Instead of improving the already cutting-edge but "downgrading" the rest of the world is certainly interesting point of view and helpful in realistic settings. Unfortunately it doesn't help with some settings. For example, if you take Sentou Yousei Yukikaze, the world is about early TL9 yet the computer installed in the MC's plane is clealy way above the ones expected for that TL: At TL9 and SM+4 airplane, you get C5 computer while Yukikaze is at very least C7 (equivalent to TL12) but more likely C10 or so (can pilot better than aces, unbelieveable EW capability and intelligence analysis).

I still need to get my head around delta-v and acceleration bonus before I move from reactionless drives but thanks for the suggestions. I really wish Pyramid magazines could be bought in bundles...
Does Pyramid #34 contains strong armors for SM+4 ground vehicles? Like better steel armor that allows it to match the DR of MBTs?

I really love this! It doesn't cover some edge cases like the Yukikaze I mentioned above but this is comprehensive enough for most cases. Thanks!

If I may asks another question about Spaceships, what's the damage type of its guns? Also, isn't it slightly weak? Railgun 40mm deals 6dx25 (3) pi damage while 4cm EM gun deals 6dx10 damage. Maybe damage type changes this?

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Yes, it has an "Armor and Volume" Rule which increases dDR based on how much armor you install. The more armor the more compact the ship can be (and thus less volume it takes up) and the higher the dDR. This can also reduce the ships effective SM for being targeted. It probably still doesn't offer enough of a boost to fit realistic Tank DR though, but it is a step in the right direction.

Note that an M1 Abrams weighs in excess of 60 tons, which puts it between SM+5 and SM+6 in the Spaceships rules (right around SM+5.5 if you use my optional rules in the Design Spreadsheet). Even the Sherman Tanks were in excess of 30 Tons, which pegs them at solidly SM+5 by the Spaceships rules. While they might be physically more like SM+4 by their length, Spaceships uses an abstract of mass to determine a vehicles SM.

All gun damage types and damages are listed on the tables on p. 67 and 68 of Spaceships.Damage for all Conventional Guns and Conventional Missile Warheads is the Base Damage and can be multiplied for relative velocity (see p. 61). This is explained in the Combat System.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Your proposed system is probably on the cinematic side, but is really good. Probably going to steal it, thanks.

The "bullets" fired by Spaceships guns are actually more akin to missiles than the projectiles fired by the UT firearms, they just get basically all of their velocity from being fired rather than from a rocket (they still maneuver to strike a target, hence them not suffering range penalties). That said, the 40mm railgun and 4cm EM gun actually line up pretty well - EM guns have a base velocity of 2 mps, meaning that's actually 6dx20 damage, which is right on par, at least within Spaceships resolution.

As for damage type, I don't think Spaceships ever actually states what damage type conventional projectiles deal, but I'm pretty certain it's meant to be crushing.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I'm really liking these suggestions. I think I'm going to have to try to incorporate some version of these rules into my spreadsheet and the optional rules sheet that comes with it.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Well, just making it a Genius computer puts you at C7. You could also make it a Compact SM+5 system for C8. That's enough for a IQ 10 volitional AI (Ultra-Tech p 25) or IQ 12 mind emulation (Ultra Tech p 27). With a Talent relating to EW and Intelligence Analysis, it could be effectively IQ 16 for those skills, plus having them at IQ+4 through training.

Alternately, it could just be a plot device that doesn't obey the standard rules.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

The T-72A (HT244), at least, is buildable with Spaceships, provided you're willing to "zoom in" and get rid of some of the abstraction. The T-72A actually averages somewhere just south of dDR 20. With 12 armor modules (the least needed for the -1 SM to get the tank down to its actual SM+4 dimensions), you'd need each to give dDR 5 (keeping in mind you'd average 4 modules per section), which with the x1.8 multiplier of having 12 modules means a base dDR of 2.78, which doesn't seem inappropriate for early TL 8 metallic laminate (mature TL 8 metallic laminate is a full dDR 3). The linked post clearly lacked access to Pyramid #3/34, so let's redo the drivetrain, engine, and fuel tank - its performance is consistent with a single tracked drivetrain using 2 PP, so that'll take up 3 modules (2 ICE's, 1 drivetrain). Range is consistent with using internal fuel, so no need for a separate fuel tank module. That leaves it with 2 empty modules for wiggle room, although it may use up part of that for some Passenger Seating. The rest is probably armor, actually, as dDR2.78 may be a bit high for the T-72A's armor (13 modules would mean a base of around dDR 2.5, which I think sounds a bit more feasible).

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

So I've been going through these suggestions with more care and have a couple comments.

With sensors, any bonus to Scan *IS* a bonus to range, since the primary use for high skill is to offset range penalties. There's no need to have separate bonuses here.

I'm not a rocket scientist, but it seems that a 20% and 40% boost in delta-v is unrealistically huge. I'm having a hard time finding any accurate numbers for realistic rockets over the years, but my gut just tells me that it's not right. Most rockets using the same fuel have Isp within 10% of one another, and delta-V is just Isp multiplied by the Ln of (full mass / empty mass); most increases in delta-V come from reducing empty mass of the entire rocket by tiny fractions, and those mass savings can come from anywhere from computers to better structural materials for the fuel tanks.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Realistically, anything that boosts Delta-V at all becomes the new standard and everyone's choice. If all "normal" rocket engines in use are effectively "Very Fine" that might partially explain why they are so expensive.

Rocket engines are more likely to vary by power-to-weight ratio. For example the "Merlin" engine used in the Falcon-9 by Space-X gives out 150 lbs of thrust per lb of engine. The standard number used in Ve-2 was 100 lbs per lb. This might be where the weight savings that allow for the landding gear come from.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

It depends. Reaction engines are a category of engines where rocket engines is just one(well two if you count HEDM as separate) type.

For Rocket engines, yes there would likely not be (at least not much) d-v increase, but you may see the engine create more thrust for the same mass engine, allowing you to mount less engines and get the same acceleration.

But for things like Fission or Fusion engines you would likely be able to gain more d-v by better designed engine. In fact some of them do gain more d-v by TL as it is and as I see it the others not gaining such is likely a simplification as realistically a higher TL engine should be able to produce and transfer more energy to the reaction mass increasing it's speed and thus ISP.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Active sensors have a maximum range (Spaceships p 45). I think there's a useful distinction between a Level 10 sensor with a range of 3 LS, a level 9 Fine (Sensitive) array with range of 2 LS that is picks up signals within its range as well as the Level 10 sensor, and a level 9 Fine (Powerful) array with a 3 LS range that can't pick up objects within its range as well as either of the other sensors.

Me neither, but I recently read Ignition! which is a history of early liquid fuel rockets. Certainly within the range of "chemical rocket fuel" there's space for trade-offs that could give ISP differences of -20% to +40%. The table of exotic rocket fuels in WW2: Motor Pool p 13 has a variation of 240 to 320 in ISP between kerosene/nitric acid and octane/oxygen, and that's not including the range of exotic rocket fuels that were developed post-WWII. Building a rocket engine to use Cl3F is not a trivial challenge, but if we could, we can get ISPs in the 350+ range.

I can believe that HEDM technology could have similar variations just between metallic hydrogen and metastable helium, and the various nuclear engines could have ISP variations based on the energy of the reaction you're eventual using. Nuclear light bulbs, for instance, seem like they would have space for a higher ISP design that heats the exhaust to even higher amounts but then require exotic materials for the nozzles and such.

On top of that, a 20% or 40% improvement is not that much compared to the TL advances, which are usually 3x or more. If a TL 10 Fusion Rocket has a delta-V of 60 mps per tank, I'm okay with the best TL 9 Fusion Rocket having a delta-V of 17 mps per tank.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Remember that active sensors can detect objects beyond their 'maximum' range at -2 per doubling of range.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I missed that, but it illustrates my point: the Fine (Sensitive) array is flat out better than the Fine (Powerful) within 2 LS, and usually worse at longer ranges. At 10 LS, the Sensitive array is at -5 but the Powerful array only at -4. Which option you want depends on how you expect to use the array but either option is a lot of money for a little advantage.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Here's my attempt of recreating Yukikaze with your enhancements:

FFR-41 Mave "Yukikaze"
I didn't knew exactly how to handle Compact, do I double the CF (Compact Genius computer is worth +248 CF)?
Also, is it possible to have an engine that occupies two slots and say it's a single thing (like Spinal Battery)? It's mostly fluff so it seems probably but by the rules one of the engines could be disabled/destroyed while the other is operational, which would make it strange. Maybe it's "half-destroyed" as in badly damaged: burning, smoking but still somehow operational?

Non-Volitional AI "Yukikaze"
TL9 C7 Base Cost: $10K
Advantage: Soul of the Machine 4 [20] (Based on this advantage from Pyramid, gives bonus to Piloting, Electronic Operation, Gunner, Artillery and Navigation)
Skills: Piloting (High-Performance Airplane) DX+6 [8]; Artillery (Guided Missile) IQ+5 [4]; Artillery (Cannon) IQ+4 [2]; Gunner (Cannon) DX+4 [1]; Navigation (Air) IQ+4 [2]; Electronic Operation (EW) IQ+5 [4]; Electronic Operation (Sensors) IQ+5 [4]
Total CP: 45 (+225$)
Final Cost: $32.5K

While making up the AI I encountered two problems: Can AIs learn DX based skills like Piloting and Gunner? I think there should be one but I couldn't find an upper limit of how many points can an AI have, did I miss it or it really doesn't exist as RAW?

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Not really related to the question at hand but for the sake of it, here's also the other prominent ship from Sentou Yousei Yukikaze:

Nuclear Aeriel Aircraft Carrier "Banshee"

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Your ship designs are missing their 2 core sections and middle and rear hulls.

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.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

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.

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.

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.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

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.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

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.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

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).

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.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

See the "Smaller Systems" rules in Spaceships 7 and 8.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

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.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

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.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Depends on the Enterprise, I suppose. The "newest" one has point defense that shoots down torpedoes pretty well, as I recall.

Also, torpedoes travelling at warp speed seems like about the most "informed attribute" thing ever, which is saying a bit for Trek.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I wouldn't use anything associated with J.J. Abrahms as a source for technical accuracy and/or good design.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

As much as I like Trek, I don't think I'd go to almost anything Star Trek for technical accuracy or good design.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

IIRC, the old d20 Revised Star Wars (or whatever the official name was, the edition just before SAGA) actually had armor give characters and ships DR, and the force fields of the system also had their own DR before you could start stripping them away. Essentially, the shields had DR and HP, and only once you "killed" the shield (depleted its HP) could you start harming the ship. Personally, I favor that version of force fields over the GURPS semi-ablative DR model. Well, sort of - my ideal shield setup is one where the above is typically true, but a really powerful shot can punch through even without completely depleting the shield's HP, and really well-aimed/lucky shots are able to hit outside of their "weight class" with regards to this, but I'm still working out what the mechanics of such a scheme would look like.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Very small guns in large quantities should start running into surface area limits. Look at a late world war 2 warship, and you'll see that there's nowhere to cram in more guns. That should probably be GM fiat, with fewer small guns available on streamlined ships. Note that many real world ships had tertiary or smaller guns mounted on top of primary turrets simply because there was space there. (Mounting secondaries on top of main turrets, like the Kearsage, didn't work well...)

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Going back to the OP, I'd generally caution that one should treat systems as written as the most highly engineered, most expensive version of the system. Variants should be worse than stock in performance and cost-effectiveness.

I base that on TL8 and TL9 spacecraft design -- for the near-term, spaceflight is so expensive that it makes little sense to skimp on the vehicle itself, aside from reductions in weight. A well designed contemporary spacecraft is as expensive per kg as possible.

Future advances will make space more accessable, and thus the spacecraft itself will (eventually) become the primary cost, at which point cost reductions become relevant, but for the most part costs seem extrapolated from TL8 stuff.

That said, contemporary spaceship design is bespoke and one-off, so you probably need to multiply costs by a factor of maybe (1000/(total number of ships in the production run)+1)? I'd have to actually do research to say for sure, but it's something like that.

Presuming that remains consistent into the future, paying more for a better system really means both getting a one-of-a-kind ship that's built for your needs specifically, and expressedly not buying low-cost components to do the job.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I think there is room in the design system for more advanced components, even at TL8 or TL9. A TL covers a long time, and a design that is state of the art in 2020 is not going to be state of the art in 2050.

Fine and Very Fine components help smooth the transition between TLs: a TL9 Fine (efficient) fusion torch doesn't have nearly the performance of a TL 10 fusion torch, but it begins to bridge the gap.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I think that there is room for better quality vehicles (including spacecraft) and I suggest the following modifications. Cheap components would inflict a -1 to skill to operate, +1 skill to repair, and would have a CF of 0.6. Good components would give a +1 to skill to operate, -1 skill to repair, and would have a CF of 4.0. Fine components would gives a +2 to skill to operate, -2 skill to repair, and would have a CF of 19.0. Best components would give a +(TL/2, rounded down) to skill to operate, -(TL/2, rounded down) to repair, and would have a minimum CF of 99.0 (if it is available at all). Repair costs would be modified by the CF of the quality of the component.

Instead of modifying skill, Cheap Armor would have -20% DR, Good Armor would have +20% DR, Fine Armor would have +40% DR, and Best Armor would have (+[TL/2, rounded down] * 20%) DR. Force Shields would receive a similar modification while Defensive ECM would modify the penalty to the enemy and the dodge bonus (rounded down).

So, in the case of a TL10 SM+8 streamlined spacecraft, it could purchase Cheap Nanocomposite Armor for $4M per component and receive only DR 15 per component, Good Nanocomposite Armor for $25M per component and receive DR 18 per component, Fine Nanocomposite Armor for $100M per component and receive DR 21 per component, or Best Nanocomposite Armor for $500M per component and receive DR 30 per component. Of course, only experimental spacecraft would probably benefit from Best Quality components.