GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]

[nik1979]

Confusing Hangar Creation Rules:

Originally Posted by ISW 195

Regardless of the size of any small craft to be stored within a hangar bay, the necessary equipment takes up 1.5 spaces, has a mass of one ton, has negligible cost, and uses negligible power. The hangar bay must then be allocated two spaces for every dton of capacity; this extra space has no mass, cost, or power requirement.

* 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?

[daryen]

Originally Posted by nik1979

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?

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.

[nik1979]

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.

[Shrale]

Originally Posted by nik1979

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 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 ?

>

[nik1979]

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.

[Shrale]

Originally Posted by nik1979

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).

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.

>