GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Clarification

Fixed Equations (Fxd):
Small Craft Pilots and Crew
Small Craft Technicians
Flight Control Crewman
Engineering
Command Section
Ship Troops
Cargo Service Section
Gunnery Section


Non-Fixed Equations
Maintenance Section (Mnt)
Medical Section (Med)
Life Support Section (Lif)
Workshops (Wrk)
General Service Section (Gen)

My Problem with the non-fixed equations is that they are co-dependent on each other and I think its possible to calculate for their value BUT not with layman math.

Total Crew (Crw)

Fxd + (Mnt = (Crw/40)) + (Med = (Crw/40)) + (Lif = (Crw/80)) + (Wrk = (Crw/60)) + (Gen = (Crw/60)) = Crw

See My problem?, the variables are dependent in the final output variables.
Does the Errata or FAQ people have any answers to this.

If not, I recommend making Mnt like Engineering section but dependent on other elements (dtons of ?), Lif, Med, and Gen depend on Ship Quarters (and a way to generate recommended working ship quarters), and Wrk depend on Mnt.


(why is it that 3e has more stuff on this?)
ECM system rules
EW system rules
Convert the 3e Shipdesign Tables? At least an unofficial one, because there is no ISW plan in the future. I'm making a consolidated table set, combining 3e and 4e ship designs, but there is so much left to interpretation of doctrine I'm thinking of basing the TL10s on Honorverse-ish.

A few Other things..

• Since there are missile construction rules in 3e, how about and drone construction? The rules as is can actually created 10dTon EW/ECM drones.
• I've been reading the senor rules, it seems that it is either 1/0 when it comes to detecting something in range. I've scanned through the book and there seems to be no bonuses detecting anything closer or penalties at the edge of range (or any mention of Range modifiers to scanning)? My problem with the rules as is, is that it is a "save-or-die" situation for free-traders (vs missiles, fighters, enemy missile boats).

Scenario. Pirate warnings with idle or missile probe/Beacons. Instead of broadcasting, pirates can dictate their demands with the probe/beacon (using them as to relay tight beam messages) while maintain silent running. Worst case senario for the pirates, they use decoys to confuse the prey of thier actual vector and force a "detection" reroll for the Scan officer or the scan officer will fail to see the "switch" (if he makes it, he will see two opfors and will have to make a large enough margin of success to determine which is the enemy ship). This basically lets a 20dton assault craft sneak up on a free trader (like in somalia's coast) and board.

Even if probes will cost as much as 1M-3M its worth the cash win of a intact prize.

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Not really dependent, but total crew does show up on both sides of the equation. So gather it together. Leaving out the labels like "Mnt" and doing some algebra on the formula you posted:

Crw = Fxd + Crw/40 + Crw/40 + Crw/80 + Crw/60 + Crw/60

Crw = Fxd + 6 Crw / 240 + 6 Crw / 240 + 3 Crw / 240 + 4 Crw / 240 + 4 Crw / 240

Crw = Fxd + 23 Crw / 240

240 Crw = 240 Fxd + 23 Crw
217 Crw = 240 Fxd

Crw = 240 Fxd / 217

Check my work...

It has more pages, including a whole book just on starships, instead of one section?

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Thanks for the algebra, man i forgotten too much of it when I realized this is the LCD and the GCM usage.

the Variable Crew is about 10.6% of the fixed value crew.
Fxd x 10.6% = Crw

Then i divide this by
.26 x Crw = Maintenance
.26 x Crw = Medical
.13 x Crw = Life Support
.17 x Crw = Workshop
.17 x Crw = General Services


So If I have a fixed crew of 600
I have a variable crew of 64+ (rounded to a whole person of course)

17 = Maintenance
17 = Medical
8 = Life Support
11 = Workshop
11 = General Services

Wow, got it! Thanks Anaraxes! I'm embarrassed by how much I forgot.

I wish they put it in the book in simpler terms.

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Playing with GTISW stats again.

I've noticed that 100spaces and Tons of Repulsors are = to 100 spaces worth of missile racks. Since I could mount missile racks as a bay weapon, i could just match repulsors dTon to dTon but have the flexibility to use my missile superiority against other enemy units.

Also Ive noticed that there are allowances for redundancy in Ship Scanners and Command Positions. Does that mean I can have up to 3 Separate Scanners and 3 opportunities to roll for detection?

Interestingly, in GM's fiat I've noticed that scanners actually serve the same role as communications equipment and EW. So by this reason, I can have a dedicated scanner serve the role of EW. EW can probably do the job of sensor disruptor in UT. They screw up missile targeting and detection adding a ton of noise and false info that would screw up identification.


20-DTON Heavy Fighter
This small craft was used by both Imperial and Terran forces for missile screening (point defense, reconnaissance) and to add to the missile volley for larger missile batteries
Tech Level: 10.
Hull: 20-dton Needle/Wedge Airframe hull (6.6ksf, 6.6tons, $2.4), dDR 13 armor (42.9tons, +$0.5148), Stealth (+1.54tons, +$0.462).
Systems: 4.5 Maneuver Drive (4.5dtons, 90MW, 900tons of thrust, 18tons, $4.5), Standard Bridge (2.5dtons, 12tons, $1) (80-man days), Model-3 Sensors (Scan 18) (2dtons, 24tons, $8, -8MW), Heavy Turret (2dtons, $0.2, 1.5 tons) (2 Pulse Lasers) (2dtons, $1M, 6tons, 20MW), 3 Missile Racks (3dtons, 8.4tons, $3.33 ), 6-1/2
Fusion Power (6.5dtons, 26tons, $19.5, 130MW), 1/2 Bunk (1dton, $0.005, 0.25tons), 1/2 Cargo (5).
Statistics: EMass 143 tons, Lmass 148 tons, Cost M$40, SM +6, ASig +0, Hull dHP 25, life support capacity 5, sAccel 6 G, no jump
capacity, Top Air Speed 4,500 mph.
Crew: Command Section (3 officers), Gunnery Section (2 crewman) .Total 3 officer, 2 crewman

5-DTON Stealth Sensor and EW Drone
The stealth sensor drones are meant to go in advance, hide and watch with powerful passive sensors, direct Screening Pod action, or act as a valuable last ditch ship ECM decoy.
Typically deployed with launch tubes.
Tech Level: 10.
Hull: 5-dton Needle/Wedge Airframe hull (3ksf, 3tons, $1), dDR 10 armor (0.77tons, +$0.01), Stealth (+0.75tons, +$0.225).
Systems: 1 Maneuver Drive (1Dtons, 20MW, 200tons of thrust, 4tons, $1), Hardened High Capacity Mainframe (complexity 11) (0.5dtons, 0.2tons, $0.6), Model-3 Sensors (Scan 18) (2dtons, 24tons, $8, -8MW), Fusion Power (1.5dtons, 6tons, $4.5, 30MW).
Statistics: EMass 39 tons, Lmass 39 tons, Cost $15M, SM +2, ASig -4, Hull dHP 15, no life support capacity, sAccel 5 G, no jump
capacity, Top Air Speed 4,500 mph.
Crew: Command Section (3 officers), Gunnery Section (2 crewman) .Total 3 officer, 2 crewman.

5-DTON Screening Pod.
The screening Pod is meant to be strategically deployed to screen for missiles and enemy movement and add to missile volley. They also serve as mobile turrets adding to the point defense force numbers.
Typically deployed with launch tubes. A carrier usually can launch up to 100 of these.
Tech Level: 10.
Hull: 5-dton Needle/Wedge Airframe hull (3ksf, 3tons, $1), dDR 10 armor (0.77tons, +$0.01), Stealth (+0.75tons, +$0.225).
Systems: 1/2 Maneuver Drive (0.5Dtons, 10MW, 100tons of thrust, 2tons, $0.5), Hardened High Capacity Mainframe (complexity 11) (piloting, artillery, and gunnery) (0.5dtons, 0.2tons, $0.6), Model-0 Sensors (Scan 14) (0.5dtons, 6tons, $2, -2MW), Fusion Power (0.5Dtons, 2tons, $1.5, 10MW), 2 Missile Racks (2dtons, 5.6tons, $2.22 ), TL9 Pulse Laser (1dton, 3tons, $0.5, -2.5MW).
Statistics: EMass 23 tons, Lmass 23 tons, Cost $8.6M, SM +2, ASig -4, Hull dHP 15, no life support capacity, sAccel ; 2.5G with full compliment 2.2G (4G w/ M-drive only; 3.2G M-drive and Scan), no jump capacity, Top Air Speed 4,500 mph.
Crew: None

Interesting Ship Doctrines from Honorverse to Traveller:
10,000Dton Missile Pod carriers armed with jump-2 x2, 200 missile racks, 70 Pulse Lasers (for long ranged point defense), Accell-5G. To carry and launch as much as 120 missile pods in 1 round mixed with sensor and EW drones 1800dton. Missile Saturation can reach as much as 400. Point Defense has as much as 310 (+EW if possible) and high mobility.

If Sensor EW Drones can act as Decoys together with the 3 maneuver limit of missiles, ships can evade clusters of missiles at the cost of a drone.

Different Factions could possibly have "racial" advantages. Like +1 to EW, +1 to Sensors, +0.5G to drive efficiency, +1 to gunnery... etc. to save on added paper work on simulating slight differences in technological advantage.

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Confusing Hangar Creation Rules:
* Hangar Bay Dtons = (Ships Dtons*#Ships*3) + (#Ships*1.5)
Hangar Bay Mass = #Ships *1Ton

So a carrier with around an average of 100 small craft of variable size and numbers will have X dtons?

Its kind of confusing. Is there a better way to state this formula?

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Trying to fill in the gaps of ISW, GT3e and UT4e.

How i calculated the damage:
[Dice x 3.5 (dice average) x 10 (from deca scale) ]^3 to get energy
from 250mm to 500mm magnitude factor of 3
Then ^1/3 the energy to get the damage, and divided it by 3.5 to get the dice.

HEMP 250mm missile $0.03M dDmg TL9-6dx2(10) cr inc, TL10-6dx2+12(10) cr inc; Range 3 maneuvers; Wt. 0.15T
HEMP 500mm missile $0.1M dDmg TL9-6dx3(10) cr inc, TL10-6dx3+18(10) cr inc.; Range 5 maneuvers; Wt. 0.5T

Fine Missiles, +1 Guidance roll, x2 Cost
Very Fine Missiles, +2 Guidance roll, x5 Cost

Nuclear Missiles UT156
Cost x1,000
Nuke 250mm (10 Kilo-Ton) $30M dDmg 6dx400 cr (8400 dmg)
Nuke 500mm (1 Mega-Ton) $100M dDmg 6dx2000 cr (42,000 dmg)
Special note of Nuclear Missiles: It usually does proximity kills, allowing them to overcome repulsors.
X-Ray Laser Heads: basically a missile that can attack a number of hexes away.
Cost x10
X-Ray Laser Heads 250mm Gunnery-15+2Acc, dDmg 4d(5) burn, ROF20, range 2/6
X-Ray Laser Heads 500mm Gunnery-15+2Acc, dDmg 7d(5) burn, ROF20, range 2/6

EW Drone 500mm $0.16M, Accel 6, Mass 0.5Tons,
Drones causes all Targeting and Scanning Electronics that pass by their affected area (1 hex) to Make a "Save" or lose acquisition (roll the missile's guidance system skill, which is typically 15). The Save Penalty is equal to Drone's EW rating (-3 at TL9, -4 at TL10). Cost x2 for a Fine EW Drone (improve the drones effectiveness by 1), Cost x5 for a Very Fine EW Drone (improve the drone's effectiveness by 2). $0.16M each.

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

I actually put the standard missile at 200 mm. (See the article I just published in JTAS.) The reason is that, if you're using the ship design system in GT:IW, the damage is 12d(10) when using the d-damage scale, or 6d x 20 (10) in the normal damage scale. This is twice the damage of the 100 mm. TL 9 HEAT round from Ultra-Tech, which suggests the missile is 200 mm. since damage seems to scale directly with warhead diameter.

It's also a lot easier to scale up the warheads since there is a 100 mm. warhead in Ultra-Tech. 8 x mass and cost of a 100 mm. warhead for a 200 mm. warhead, and effects are either x2 or x2.8, depending on the type of warhead.

If you look at missile weights in Spaceships, a 200 mm. missile is 250 lbs. and a 240 mm. warhead is 500 lbs., so 200 mm. is a better match for the .15 tons of the standard missile on that scale, too.

Suffice that, for a 4e GURPS Traveller campaign, I've made the argument that the missiles are 200 mm. And Loren seemed happy to publish it that way.

Interestingly, the missiles in Traveller are quite small, considering they're anti-ship weapons. I guess the idea is that you fire a lot of them, since lasers will probably get most of them, but it's like battleships fighting with AMRAAMs instead of Harpoons. :)

Mark

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Thanks Mark,
hehehe, your making it hard to ignore that subscription. I've placed my order at e23 now.
Any plans of making Mass Combat Stats for Traveller Ships?

The change from 200mm actually doesn't change my calculations that much. After accumulating all this data and having a naval doctrine down pat, I'm surprised there was no CCG designed after that. Once you have the established doctrines and technological paths set, you can pretty much design an Abstract fleet action and naval Strategy Card Game by it.

The CCG could possibly accommodate both fleet doctrines of Lost Fleet and Honorverse.

Asset Cards for Ships, Captains, Elite Fighter Squadrons, Bases, Shipyards, and Locations.
Action Cards for Special Fleet Maneuvers (Which need certain requirements), EW or ECM actions and drones, special attacks, traps, mines/pods, ambushes, random chance, etc.
Faction Cards. Grants a special advantage to the player. Like bonuses over generic ship stats (the difference between faction Y and W EW, Accel, Attack Range, or special maneuvers)
and with 3d6 resolutions for some elements (target number resolution so that its upward progression).

I'm trying to build some default ship stats based on ISW's

BTW, I've noticed ramming is not that hard given the factors of ship size and proximity explosions.
Ramming a ship like the Indomitable with size +13 offsets much of the +15 contested skill advantage.
If screening ships are able to pin point an enemy ship (augmenting the effective detection range of the launching ship to almost double): Scan-16(model-0) + Scan-24(model-9) can allow a missile to travel an 8 (w/c requires 9 rounds to max out accel) space vector towards a targeted ship.
I've begging to notice the usefulness of "ships of the wall". Basically dreadnaughts with a 6 point defense laser slots per heavy turret or up to about 396 point defense slots.


This means that Point Defense (PD) will be occurring at the ship's hex as part of the PD phase. Screening ships, will have a -4 (at the safest range of 12, or less at 2), +2 (accell), +13 (size) vs the repulsor-ed ship of +15 and other bonuses depending on the Penetration Aids for the Missiles or the EW/ECM abilities of the warship.

High Explosive Proximity Kill Missiles like Nukes, makes the job easier for the missiles.

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Close

Hangar Bay Volume = ((Craft Dtons * #Craft) * 2) + (#Craft * 1.5)

So, the total number of dtons taken up is basically double the size of the craft to be carried. E.g., if you are going to carry 100 10dton fighters, you need 2150 dtons of hangar volume.

Hangar Bay Mass = (#Craft * 1ton) + (#Craft * Craft tons)

Yes, the hangar itself only has mass equal to the first part, but your maneuver drive (and whatever else) had better be rated to handle a loaded hangar.

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Oh my bad, i thought the wording meant in addition. I was ok with the x3 use of space because I thought it had to factor in space between ships and paths for the crafts to move through. Still the x2 certainly helps
Thanks Daryen

Reading up on the literature concerning EW Drones
VE171 Spoofing and GT:GF 112 Jammer description is much like UT157

I think it would be just simpler to make targeting systems have a penalty and a reroll (for missile target acquisition). I was thinking -2 and -2 per additional EW would be good enough give ships enough staying power before taking on damage.

If the targeting system fails, it hits the EW instead. If succeeds despite the EW, the best is that the EW still be expended but reduces the margin of success. Offesive and Defensive ECM, one has legs but only has enough energy for one burst use the other doesnt have legs but could do its job much longer (or through microwave energy transmission)

I've just realized if the Ship combat system could be improved, one can run vehicle based campaigns.

Such campaigns would make the Vehicle Design system an Encounter generator! and even if the PC's doctrine or resources would be not be enough, part of the adventure would be the ground side Intel Gathering to get a counter edge.

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

I thought GTp166 used the "detection plus" method, where "plus" is

1. detection
2. detection + recognition
3. detection + identification

I'm guessing 1 & 2 above mean the ship may not know there's an EW decoy
out there; #3 gives you a clear idea of what you're up against.

Using AESA and PESA modes adds a bit of a bonus into the mix.

Has that changed in ISW ?

In other words rather than blindly saying since you screwed up targeting
you fire at the decoy, you'd have to have the sensor operator first
tell that there are 6 targets out there and 5 are drones and 1 is an opposing
starship (or whatever numbers are present).

Or is your way easier ?

>

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

the detection plus method is the same in ISW, but its not implicitly mentioned to be a GM roll (since the player can deduce from their own roll what they could not or can be seeing).

My problem with Spoofing method is that the no. of drones are given away. My ideal is that the no. of drones should be unknown (with a critical success giving away the presence of EW).

If they cant count the drone the options for the drone users to use other sneaky methods are not open. Methods like running silent, misdirection, and other shell game tactics.

AESA and PESA are simplified as A Scan Rating in Hexes distance
the difference with passive and active is that passive is less capable at a -6.
Despite the software rules in ISW it would be nice if it could be expounded.
If they can also update the ship board computer complexity to match UT
and allow for software quality bonuses.

Also the penalties for multi-tasking is a bit inconsistent. A small bridge is worse than a Large cockpit when it comes to multi-tasking. Shouldn't it just simply be progressively better with Quality bonus affecting the multi tasking penalty of certain tasks.

Also there are provisions for redundant control stations and scanners but no rules governing such advantages. A war ship can easily spare space for an additional command bridge or a cautious merchant can also spare the space to upgrade to such. What are the bonus of having certain system precisely dedicated or with extra resources to do their job.

UT has rules for disguised and deceptive compartments. It would be nice to consolidate some of the rules regarding that.

Also, rules for pop-up turrets, i assume light turrets only and they take up space?

If these other little rules would be fixed and a bunch of ships made and altered using them would be great for vehicles based campaigns.

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Which is why the GM should make the rolls (and make more than he really needs) :)

Telling the players: "Okay make 6 rolls..." is giving too much away.

Rolling copious amounts of dice behind the scenes (or via a computer
program) is much nicer and keeps the mystery up about whether those
are ships or just fuzzy contacts.

I don't think it's possible to detect comm in space (meaning tight beam like
laser comm and such) but it might be possible, esp once you know something's out there. The sensor rules in GT will probably explain that in
some form.

>

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

I think you will enjoy JTAS. At $20, it's a great deal. Even if you don't like some of the articles, I'm sure you will get $20 worth and more over two years.

I have Mass Combat and it looks interesting, but I haven't played around with it too much. Right now, I'm finishing up some JTAS articles and playing around with ideas for new ones. I've got a few "Ships of the Third Imperium" article ideas that I'll probably flesh out in the next few months. More in my master plan to publish a GURPS Traveller: Third Imperium for 4e GURPS book as a large series of JTAS articles. :)

The 3e GT missiles were actually 250 mm. and 500 mm., but when I compared them to warheads in 4e Ultra-Tech, etc., 200 mm. made more sense. And it is easier to figure things out.

I've tried very hard to stay close to canon, but I also think that modifying Traveller for 4e GURPS is a great opportunity to streamline things, reinvent things that were clunky or odd, etc.

I'm not really that into CCGs, but I like your ideas. There might be licensing issues with Traveller, but maybe SJG will develop a Spaceships CCG.

As far as ramming goes...I'm not sure the Third Imperium would do this, but I wouldn't be surprised if some space navies relied on robot fighters as "I don't care how much armor you have" missiles. :) No warhead, just a cockpit, a computer with NAI software, some sensors, and lots of maneuver drive. Crank that baby up to maximum speed and kamikaze in. A hundred of those things would cost a pretty penny, but they would probably overwhelm a dreadnought's defenses and a dreadnought costs a lot more, so the guys with the big robot missiles win. :)

I think nukes (clean fusion weapons that can't be turned off by dampers) would serve as the "equalizer" in naval combat and makes the game more interesting. Dreadnoughts will usually beat little ships, even those armed with nukes, but at the little ships will have a chance. And that makes it interesting.

Mark

Re: GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]
 

Considering to Bridge UT, HT and ISW

Couldn't ship costs follow the UT/HT x2 cost options? The escalating cost of +2 HT for x4 is a too big. Considering warship or frontier merchants who are required to operating far from possible proper support services, costs of X4 for a +2 HT seems to me inconsistent. Considering the huge cost jump, couldn't there be better examples of why it is such a valuable advantage that it justifies x4 cost? Because if its not that justifiable and from how I've noticed how my group looks at it then that rule should be reconisidered.

In my examination and tinkering, the Cheap Option in UT/HT is much better. Since Cheap can increase the mass, it will make a ship certainly slower. Example: Cheap Hero Class will have an Accel of 1.2 vs 1.5. Since Cheap also has the fragile option (-2 HT) the option for reliable trade off for price is still available.

Separating the x2 cost categories to Rugged and Expensive is also viable. The Rugged modifier will slow a ship down (+20% mass; Ex. Rugged Hero Class Accel 1.4), probably not doubling the DR (or just giving a +10% DR instead), increasing the HT by 2. Mixing Rugged but Cheap (heavy and not the fragile) option creates a can have x1.8 Mass and makes for a slow but affordable Frontier Operating Ship (Hero Class at Accel 1.2).

The expensive option, which really isn't that ideal for ships that are supposed to work in rugged conditions, would be great with a yacht (Accel 2.0 to 2.5), interplanetary shuttle (accel 1.3 to 1.5).

On Accel, isnt a difference between two accel, ex. Accel 1 and 6, merit a bonus far greater than half the difference? In the duration of a combat round, i just find the bonus disproportionate to my experience in flight simulations and how TDMs are scaled.

Are there inertia dampers in ships? Because, I'm wondering at the description of repulsors and how much they are related to inertia dampers.