 December 19, 2007 - 11:16pm | I uploaded my Dreadnought info into the Wiki section: http://starfrontiers.us/node/1850 Applicable skills can be found here: http://starfrontiers.us/node/1768 And a sample ship here: http://starfrontiers.us/node/2306 |
 December 20, 2007 - 12:06am | How do you handle that many ships in a battle? Assuming 24 fighters .... And what weapon load-outs for the ships? Would modifying the rules slightly to allow more space for craft accomplish the goals, kinda like some of your Pirate Frigate / Destroyers carrying 4 fighters? Not that big ships aren't fun in their own right, but can change the dynamics a lot -- if start having such large main combatants, will other classes of ships also need to get larger? Group weapons to reduce dice rolling in games? Really large LBs? Of course, the whole ship building rules are, um, well, I guess I mentioned some of it in http://starfrontiers.us/node/2199... :-) |
December 20, 2007 - 12:57am | How do you handle that many ships in a battle? With lots of notes and preparation (and when preparations A through G don't work out, then you break out the Preparation H) And what weapon load-outs for the ships? I'm still working on a warship formula for weaponry. What I need to do is sit down and figure out an average cubic meters utilized on the published material and go from there. Would modifying the rules slightly to allow more space for craft accomplish the goals, kinda like some of your Pirate Frigate / Destroyers carrying 4 fighters? External Docking Facilities are something I have for two types of fighter craft: the Streel S series fighters and the pirate fighters (Hatchet class fighters), both of which are a light fighter based craft. Each EDF carries four craft, and like lifeboats a ship is limited to one per 5HS in size. Not that big ships aren't fun in their own right, but can change the dynamics a lot -- if start having such large main combatants, will other classes of ships also need to get larger? The Juggernaut game from Dragon magazine (or Ares, or Polyhedron...I can never remember) is one such example of a dreadnought adventure. Naturally you don't want to have a whole fleet of HS:50 craft to go up against...but it can be balanced by having just one or two dreadnoughts in a detached fleet (with say, a light cruiser escorting it along with a frigate or two). The fact that these tubs are so pricy will limit the overall availability. As such, even in my own campaign (where an authoritative militant dictator overtakes the Frontier for 30+ years), they only have a handful of dreadnought sized carriers as a eaction to teh former-UPF's adoption of said large craft. Construction time will be phenomenal as well...canon rules state 1 month (40 days) per hull size so a HS:30 craft will take 30 months (or three years) to build. A lot can happen in three years...a Sathar invasion, anti-UPF government uprising (as in my dictator regime), etc before the craft is finished. Also something I need to hammer out is the SCC (Starship Construction Center) rulings. The canon rules state that the largest stations (SS:6) may conatin any size of ship, but since these new guidelines go well beyond that realm a larger station would be mandated (I'm pretty much set on allowing up to HS:24 or so to be admitted into a SS:6 station or SCC). Hence, before the really big ships can be built, the shipyard needs to be built. Add another 10-20 years of time for the bad guys to plot and react... In the end the idea is to have the UPF go proactive by approving really big ships to increase their military might against the Sathar. Who of course will react somehow...agents sabotaging the construction, acquiring blueprints and design concepts behind dreadnought technology, building their own, etc Group weapons to reduce dice rolling in games? Exactly, see the Battery Commander skill. Groups of weapons are trained on a single target in a joint effort, thus enabling massive amounts of damage that can be applicable to other dreadnought targets (this skill also further developes the offensive capacity of a UPF Battleship, the "entry level" dreadnought). |
 December 20, 2007 - 7:39am | I'm not clear on why new dreadnought pilot, engineer, astrogator, and gunner skills are required. I would think, instead, the focus would be on large scale combat. Fleet command is the only things I could see justification for. The rules for multiple astrogators can be applied to engineers and pilots without requiring a command skill class for them. It can even be applied to battery gunning, with some extra rules for coordination without providing whole new skills to them. I say just create the fleet command skill with a prerequiste of third level in any of the Spacer skills, with modifications to the rules to make room for multiple pilots, engineers, astrogators, and gunners. Also, the separation of those skills suggests that the skills didn't provide for officers before, or that we now have to designate officer skills for every profession. The point is, it opens a can of worms, a tide you can't hold back. Fleet commander, maybe, but not individual officer skills for each profession. |
 December 20, 2007 - 7:52am | With lots of notes and preparation (and when preparations A through G don't work out, then you break out the Preparation H) What about introucing squadrons of ships to the game? they could group in 2 or more, retain the maneourability, but gain from increased hitpoints/ weapons/missles. The emphasis from big ships would be shifted, and allow quicker game logistics. To stop the squadrons being too powerful, use an incremental damage system to reduce weapon effectiveness. |
December 20, 2007 - 3:23pm | I'm not clear on why new dreadnought pilot, engineer, astrogator, and gunner skills are required. The astrogator skill is unchanged from canon KH. The Battery Commander skill is something I need to update, it can be applied to any ship rather than solely for dreadnoughts (i.e. a battery commander can coordinate the same four rocket batteries on a Frigate as he could on a Battleship or HS:50 supership) As far as the engineer and piloting skills, I merely expanded from the canon KH tables for certification. What about introducing squadrons of ships to the game? True, a group of 3-5 UPF frigates is an awesome force indeed. The economics behind a dreadnought bill in the UPF has a backlash effect...all the older craft get recommissioned to planetary militias (most of which are outgunned against a sathar destroyer, not to mention all the unprotected worlds that have zero vessels), and a void opens up for all new and updated replacements for Spacefleet as they patiently await the delivery of their first orders. In other words, if it takes 3 years to recieve a HS:30 carrier, the two Task Forces along with Strike Force NOVA will also want some replacements during the wait period, so a few new frigates and destroyers get ordered up in the meantime (which take 5 and 6 months of construction time respectively) thus increasing the fleet numbers lower down the "food chain". MegaCorps end up competing for extended/renewed contracts on the smaller craft, so these existing designs suddenly become somewhat more affordable, especially if ordered in bulk, moreso as a third task force and/or second strike force becomes commissioned. Let's face it, the entire roster from the second sathar war is pretty small for a group of 27 planets that spans such a large area. Remember, the entire point behind the bill is to increase UPF presence to be better prepared against the sathar threat. Not to mention, the Sathar already have dreanoughts (re: the Juggernaut), and no doubt they were testing the waters as the bulk of Strike Force NOVA was dispatched to intercept it. Would the outcome be the same if it were simply a "squadron of frigates"? Or would you prefer a squadron of battleships escorting super-carriers...When the enemy produces one such super weapon, you can't help but wonder what else they have up their sleeve. Why take a chance that the third sathar war is ushered in by multiple Juggernauts and other similar sized vessels instead of the standard allotment of sathar cruisers, carriers, destroyers, and frigates? It becomes a game of lead, keep up, or surrender to the opposition's superior forces. |
 December 20, 2007 - 3:53pm | In our continuing game the fourth Sather war is in full swing. There are many ships in the fray. One battle had at least one hundred ships put into units, including fighters, which were thick-as-bugs-on-a-windshield. It took many years of trial and error for the simplest form of mass combat to come to being. Even the ship construction and engines had to change. In our game all engine stats are up one. And as far as building dreadnoughts, not as big as your talking about. Might as well paint a bulls-eye on it. A slow ship in our battles would be scrap in minutes. |
December 20, 2007 - 4:05pm | I'm not clear on why new dreadnought pilot, engineer, astrogator, and gunner skills are required. The astrogator skill is unchanged from canon KH. The Battery Commander skill is something I need to update, it can be applied to any ship rather than solely for dreadnoughts (i.e. a battery commander can coordinate the same four rocket batteries on a Frigate as he could on a Battleship or HS:50 supership) As far as the engineer and piloting skills, I merely expanded from the canon KH tables for certification. Okay, but can you explain why those are all necessary? Why will additional rules governing coordination not work without creating whole new skill sets? |
December 20, 2007 - 6:27pm | In our continuing game the fourth Sather war is in full swing. There are many ships in the fray. One battle had at least one hundred ships put into units, including fighters, which were thick-as-bugs-on-a-windshield. It took many years of trial and error for the simplest form of mass combat to come to being. Even the ship construction and engines had to change. In our game all engine stats are up one. And as far as building dreadnoughts, not as big as your talking about. Might as well paint a bulls-eye on it. A slow ship in our battles would be scrap in minutes. Maybe some time you could do a write up how your team accomplished that. |
December 20, 2007 - 8:10pm | Even the ship construction and engines had to change. In our game all engine stats are up one.Might as well paint a bulls-eye on it. A slow ship in our battles would be scrap in minutes. This is merely an expansion of canon stats, as such it can't be compared to a set of house rules that restructures that premise. But tic for tac, you can always up the engine stats by one for these craft too, whatever formula you utilize has to be applied unilaterally for effective gameplay. And remember, slow or fast in order to hit that bulls-eye one must also get close enough to put themselves within range of its horns. The same weapons that the smaller ship has are also on the larger ship, all sporting the same range yet in greater abundancy. Okay, but can you explain why those are all necessary? Why will additional rules governing coordination not work without creating whole new skill sets? Like I said I just expanded on the canon lists. A LVL:1 pilot can only operate system ships, a LVL:2 can operate starships up to HS:3, LVL:3 can operate up to HS:6, LVL:4 up to HS:12, LVL:5 up to HS:15, and LVL:6 that simply says "all starships". Simply put, I just felt that "all starships" was too broad of a stroke after looking at the original breakdowns that were designed for an "up to HS:20 system". If the largest breakdown spans a range of 6 hull sizes (LVL:3 to LVL:4 pilot), it just didn't feel right to allow a breakdown to span HS:16 to 50...it would be akin to saying you start out shooting rubber bands off your index finger, graduate to a plastic dart gun, then to a BB gun, and then you're qualified to fire everything else up to a howitzer. As far as skill sets goes, I haven't really put much thought into the requirements for any. I just felt that a few extra hands would be needed for the vast array of controls, patterning it like a submarine crew...one person operating the bow planes for directional changes, another on the ballast tanks to control depth, etc |
December 20, 2007 - 9:09pm | Okay, but can you explain why those are all necessary? Why will additional rules governing coordination not work without creating whole new skill sets?
The difference between sizes 20-30 are not the same as the differences between the smaller ships. In fact, there would be almost no difference. They're going to operate from the same guages and handle pretty much the same, just on a larger scale. The original level scaling sucks bad enough, I don't recommend duplicating it. |
December 21, 2007 - 4:19pm | We used canon rules and still wiped it severely. And the dice weren't helping anything. Even if you only get 1/3 of the damage of the batteries and canons that's 60 points. With the Juggernaut having only 480 points it should take less than 10 turns. It can only shell out with perfect rolls 160 points. And the RB's we weren't even scared of them with only a range of 3. And the torpedoes are space to ground weapons only. (i have no idea why, but what ever) And the DC just don't go in front of it. Antone that lost this battle needs to get new dice or check to see if your buddy loaded them. I repeat, we used the RULES of the book on this one. Tactics really didn't have much to do with it. Just make good old fashion broad side runs with this scenario at a range of 7 or better and there you go, you win end of scenario, clean up fighters with assault scouts for about 5 turns then bring in the frigates. At this point there shouldn't be much left of the juggernaut. And somewhere in all of this bring in your the destroyers. Oh yes, by the way, we ran this scenario with two Juggernauts just to make it more interesting. A third one was talked about. Read the rules. On page 7 it says for rate of fire
can be fired during both the controlling player's combat phase and during his opponent's combat phase. Torpedoes and assault rockets can be fired only during the controlling player's combat phase. A ship with more than one torpedo, assault rocket or rocket battery can fire each only once per turn. For example, a ship with four torpedoes and two rocket batteries can fire only one torpedo and one rocket battery per turn. i won't get close enough for your RB so there out and the DC all I have to do is not get in front. So, that leaves 3 LB, 1 PB, 2 EB, 1 T and 1 SM that is left to fire you can count on 2 almost garanteed and maybe 3 more even though your battleship just took about 164 points of damage in the same turn from fighters that cost only about 100000 cr each with that in mind you lost how many millions of credits and 400 lives, to my 2 million credits and 5 pilots. Mean while the carrier that launched them ponds the rest of your ship to dirt what ever is left. The carrier and fighters cost less than your battleship. Come on look at from how much can I buy for a limited amount and make the most bang. Even using the canon rules. And we all are or were in the military from pilots to ground pounders. And we stay within the hullsize 1 to 20. With one exception of a mobile asteroid, long story. Is this an extension of something you're lacking?  just kidding.  |
December 21, 2007 - 7:38pm | The reason they get wiped up is because after 10, you should change to levels by 10, being 10, 20, 30, etc. Then when they reach, 100, you change to 100, 200, 300, etc. So I would recommend a whole new size designation. Since everything over size 20 is called a dreadnought, then call it dreadnaught size 1, 2, 3, etc, using the same rules for hull construction, but having damage divisible by 10 with standard KH weapons. The hull size still progresses as normal, but the damage factors decrease appropriately. 100 points of damage on a hull size 14 ship with 140 HP would be substantial, but would only be 10 damage to a dreadnaught size 4 (hull size 40) ship with D40 SP (standard Structure Points for dreadnought size). The difference between the two is the same as the difference between my Starflight article's frame sizes and frame SP and KH's hull sizes and hull SP. It provides a standard progression. STA is like the small size health value, frame SP is like the medium size standard health, hull SP is like the large size standard health, and dreadnought SP is like the giant size standard health. Anything larger would be the size of a small planet. So I guess you would have planet SP relating to gargantuan sizes. Planet destroyers anyone? |
December 21, 2007 - 10:04pm | I bet they're fun going through a mine field. Any large ship is a target even in now standards. I only see them as a base of operations. As for a combat ship only in pitched battles or of no choice. But a hull size 50. I think a seeker mine fields would be fun with this one. We had a guy in space opera that the military had these monstrous ships. So, I made a reference to the death star's demise and he quit making big ships. With you using such a large ship even with a screen of smaller ships, if this government can afford to buy them and put all of their eggs in the same basket, all I need is smaller and cheaper fighters. And a ship load of mines. The dreadnoughts of yesterday were a mistake. How many ships, other than carriers, are battleship or larger in any navy. And don't just say they're not smart enough, or don't know what they're doing. Because if you can not see that a dreadnought no matter how much romantics it has, romantics in this case is more of a love for the futile, it is a target. The only way it could survive is if you spend the same amount on screening ships to protect it. |
December 22, 2007 - 2:44am | The original level scaling sucks bad enough, I don't recommend duplicating it. I can agree, the original skill/qualifications and the hull specification tables do leave something to be desired. My biggest gripe on that front is the engine specifications...it's the one edit I made in my game while leaving the rest alone (c'mon, three B drives propel a HS:5 craft at ADF:3 while one A drive propels HS:4 at ADF:4?!?). A large enough drive should be able to propel a large enough mass at similar rates as the smaller drive/mass combos (re: power to weight ratios), but I didn't mess with that too much, at least to the point where I just didn't see the need for ADF:5 battleships... I do like the suggestion about hull points and hull sizes (the increased factor/decreased damage etc). I'll have to dabble with that one for a while. Read the rules. On page 7 it says for rate of fire... When I said worst case scenario I was referring to the possibility for the 12 fighters vs battleship, the fighters wouldn't fare well on their offensive firing and the battleship had the chance to fire a topredo each round. Unlikely, but still possible. I never cared for the RB system from day one. It chews up more space than a laser battery, can only be fired once, rediculously short range, MPO weapon, etc etc etc the way I see it a frigate would kick some major butt if you swap out the rocket batteries (160 cubic meters assuming four weapon systems total, or 80 cubic meters for one weapon with four salvos...see below*) for the equivilent allocated space worth of laser batteries (25 cubic meters each, so 5 or 3 LBs depending on the interpretation). Even if you follow the civilian ship arming rules (which incorporates MHS numbers) the LB simply makes more sense. For that very reason I tend to ignore the one RB firing per turn rule. If you have separate software for each one, no reason why you can't fire two or three or all of them in one action. I mean, with all the other restrictions...there has to be some reason why the weapon is the mainstay of spacefleet as everything frigate and larger has a grip of them! (the one AR or T per turn is still a very fair ruling though, at least they have some range and cause a lot more damage when they hit). In that vein, the Juggernaut tends to fare better, assuming the fleet ships get close enough to use their own rocket batteries. Even so, the Jug's 14 energy batteries can concentrate on one ship each turn. *There's also some confusion in the rules as to exactly what a rocket battery is...p22 of the KH campaign book says any battery can be swapped out for a rocket battery w/4 shots. So does a battleship's 10 rocket batteries count as ten weapons with four salvos, or is it two fully loaded RBs and one half-loaded one? Or is it just one battery with ten shots? Personally I feel the Juggernaut is undergunned, but then again it also doubles as a carrier. If it were strictly armed as a gunship, in theory it could have four times the weaponry and defenses of a battleship assuming you go by the proportion of hull points it has. That being the case, give the game a whirl with the ship armed accordingly: SAV Juggernaut II (robot gunship) HP 480 ADF 1 MR 1 DCR 300 Weapons: DC (x4)*, LB (x12), PB (x4), EB (x8), S (x16), T (x32), RB (x40) Defenses: RH, ES, PS, SS, ICM (x48)
|
December 22, 2007 - 10:09am | The Juggernaut is even a lesser threat now than it was before. Enough of that. Anyhow, we have been trading the RB out for an extra 2 LB and 1 EB. And, made R cheap defenses for bases. In our games we tracked weapons use and the RB is barely used at all, no reason for explanation here, the T is the next weapon that is used the least, same reason here. Well, as for the SM if it didn't have an alternate use like the mine role would be useless also. Most of the time T's and RB's are dropped for more SM, even if it is only one more. And, the seeker has an IFF program, this info is in the game somewhere. And for the final hooray, that ASSault ROCKet has the weirdest description I have eave ever heard. If it weren't for the fact it is the only weapon that fighters could use I would have left it on the wayside. "Assault rockets are powered by a brief fusion reaction which causes them to fly even faster than torpedoes." quoting the rules. So, knowing this I think the range would have been longer than the torpedo. I would have loved to been with the people involved with this game when it was being thought up. It is like the editors couldn't make up there mind what to keep or throw out. I am just glad I decided to do it anyway.
|
December 22, 2007 - 8:16pm | For basic moding, I like the idea in 'Frontiers of Design' of different space requirements for launcher vs ammo.... (don't like their MHS rule, though, so if just use it to swap weapons by space used....) http://www.starfrontiers.com/rules/Dragon/_design.htm EDIT: and in the above, the space available needs to be bumped for HS:5 (and up) to fit what is actually carried by a Frigate, changing 175m^3 to 300m^3 for HS:5, increase by 50 per HS to HS:14, then add 100 per HS. Using those rules, a Basic Game Frigate and 295 m^3 of Weapons & Defenses (I've been experimenting with some Basic rules stuff, so I have it handy. So, could mod it to something like the below (I also don't like the Masking Screen -- takes a LOT of space...) (Basic Game) Frigate Weapons: LC, LB, T(2), RB(4) Defenses: RH, MS, ICM(4) If I figured things currectly, taking just 5 more m^3, and I'm including a little limit on how much power is available for beam weapons): (Basic Game) Frigate (AA) Weapons: LB (4), RB (8) Defenses: RH, ICM (16) (I didn't want FF LC, as designed to fight ships faster / more manueverable than it....) And the RB is a MPO weapon? I have to admit that I've lost my original SF:KH docs, but in the online docs, RBs aren't MPO.... Still won't stop AR attacks, but not quite AS bad. Of course, the limited number of rounds still limits things.... In terms of Dreadnaughts in the rules, without bigger weapons and armor, other than Carriers, probably have some issues in terms of usefullness -- instead of 9 (or was it 6) 15' guns, put 20 5' guns and a DD level armor on the HMS Dreadnaught, and not quite as effective, IMO. In low MR ships, I'd probably consider limited the number of fixed weapons, and instead go with battery weapons that can shoot in any direction. I might actually consider a few MS charges as well, and no Laser weapons.... KH:Int, KH:V, and I think SS: House rules have heavier batteries that might help larger ships, although I haven't seen any ruleset that uses penetrations ability with Armor, so that smaller weapons have no effect against different levels of armor..... Could use three sizes of batteries (similar to KH:Int) and three armor levels that impact penetration ability. For example, Heavy Cruiser & larger size can have armor that a standard LB can't penetrate.... This would make larger ships more useful, IMO, as well as Torpedos more useful (they can penetrate any armor) -- like in WW I & II, DD 5in guns (LB in SF) couldn't sink a BB, but Torpedos could.... (although probably would need to be make Torpedo's a bit smaller so could carry a few more than 2 in a FG or DD.) But a pretty significant change.... ;-) ;-) ;-) |
December 22, 2007 - 1:36pm | SS, I would recommend starting from Dreadnaught size 3, the way I started the hull size from size 3. The reason is that it's better on multiplipliers and bonuses. The hull sizes take it up to 20, which would be equivellant to dreadnought size 2, so it would be natural anyway. Note that hull sizes 1 and 2 are practically meaningless in KH, which is why my frame sizes take care of those sizes (though the frame sizes don't go to 20, but should they?...Nah). |
December 22, 2007 - 1:52pm | You need to more research on WWI and WWII battles. In allot of cases the allies were out gunned by noticeable measures and won. On that is a historical landmark in this area is Guadalcanal if memory serves me right. The biggest ship the allies had was frigate. and destroyers. And the Japanese had from frigate to heavy cruisers and lost to a bunch of determination, not bigger guns. Yes the allies got the crap blown out of them but the Japanese lost. The allies could have lost something in the line of one hundred thousand troops in paper troop ships that the ally ships were protecting. Please, do more research on your facts before you guess on what would happen. Even though LB's do only do a single d10 in damage or can't penetrate armor there is always a week spot. A porthole, the engine port, a hatch cover, or an area that took just a few to many hits already. Anyway, just pure physics makes the laser penetrate the armor. |
December 22, 2007 - 2:49pm | I think the research should be more on modern battles. There are some fundamental differences between battles then and now. As for the carriers mentioned earlier, carriers are kept away from battle. Whereas frigates take on closer shore battles, destroyers are a little further out, and battleships (now retired, I believe) are even further out. In other words, the larger they are, the further away from the battle they serve. The further away from battle they are, the different purpose they serve. Destroyers bombard the coastline. Battleships provide long range ship and air support to the destroyers and frigates, intercept and blockade actions, and air support protecting the further out carriers. |
December 22, 2007 - 8:12pm | I think the research should be more on modern battles. There are some fundamental differences between battles then and now. I thought I read somewhere that SF is based a bit on WW-II. IMO, the weapons used more closely resemble WW-II than Modern -- primarily "Gun" based vs "Missile" based. Gilbert -- In terms of the question of 5in vs armor, I wasn't clear in my post that I was refering to hull damage -- as I mentioned basic game, this would have been assumed, even if it wasn't my intent. My thinking has always been that external systems could still be damaged. In terms of hull damage, could instead make it a small chance to penetrate intead of no chance, but I was going for simplicity, and throwing out ideas on how to differentiate larger ships. I'm always looking to learn more, although as WW-I and II cover roughly 10 years of action, do you have any specific example that tie into the question of armor vs weapon effectiveness? (I did some reading up on Guadalcanal and early years of WW-II in the Pacific, and quite often, it was an Alied Tactical Defeat but a Strategic Victory, including The Battle of Coral Sea and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal ) And this is not to take anything away from the heroism of our sailors. I also couldn't find any reference to a battleship being sunk by 5in guns in WW-II. At Guadalcanal, the Hiei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Hiei) took 30 8in shells and many 5in shells, which damaged steering, superstructure, fire control, etc. Then hit by planes the next day (bombs and torpedoes), before sinking (although possibly skuttled.) The Roma was sunk by Guided Missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Roma_(1940)). Bismark was heavy guns, torpedoes, and finally scuttled (I believe.) Yamato was air power. I think another Japanesse BB from submarine torpedo. And while I know that WikiPedia isn't to be sole sourced, but there is also the comment on one page: "It is in fact doubtful whether during that war any battleship was sunk by gunfire alone (although the battlecruiser Hood was destroyed by gunfire in the Battle of the Denmark Strait))."" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Surigao_Strait#Battle_of_Surigao_Strait For WW-II heavy cruiser, aye, I would expect that they take more damage from 5in shells than battleships, although I view the Star Frontiers Heavy Cruiser to be more battlecruizers or pocket battleship in WW-II terms (aka, closer to a battleship than a Heavy Cruiser was in WW-II.) For the science of the thing, well, there are screens and suits to reduce the damage from laser weapons dirtside in SF, the 'MR' rating (magic momentum redirect) for ships, and a military need for laser defense armor, so they could come up with something.... In any event, my intent isn't to change canon rules (SS's dreadnaught is in the Houserules section after all), and I don't think SS is going to change his house rules, but to come up with options to have armor provide something other than just more HP. All the above being said, I do realize that in WW-II, the Battleship was supplanted by aircraft carriers, and could be argued that the money would probably have been better spent on Cruisers than Battleships... (and to include Torpedo's on US heavy cruisers, but that's another issue.) And please, polite discussion, and not, in effect, saying "Go back to school before you bring up furthur stupid ideas." |
December 22, 2007 - 9:15pm | Read what I put again. I don't remember or see that I said 5 in gins sunk a battleship, I see were I put cruiser. Ad for the era base of SF, yes it is based on the romance of WWII. The glory of it all as the theatre put it. And for being polite, sorry you got offended, but it bugs me that someone comes along and says "your laser bounced of my hull" in a whimpering voice. Anyway, if anyone is running around with battleships leading the charge has got to be crazy. Battleships are just floating fortress that can be sunk. That money would be better spent on space stations with lots of smaller ships. We have analysed our own battles as to what made the difference and what stood out was carriers with fighter just like in WWII. With a good follow up with frigate,destroyer,cruiser, and a peppering of mine layers. In SF using missile based weapons it makes support more interesting. Go here, http://www.world-war.co.uk/ you might have fun on the ship to fire power that was around in early 20th century. I am curious to find out what you see. |
December 22, 2007 - 10:51pm | Thanks for the URL -- looks intersting. As for the laser "Bouncing off the hull", that is basically what a Reflective Hull does, as well as the armor found in a Dragon Magazine article (http://www.starfrontiers.com/rules/Dragon/_armory.htm). While popularity does not indicate correct, it isn't something new, and does lend to the WW-II feel IMO... FWIW, other interesting articles on WW-II Battlecruisers and Cruisers are at http://www.chuckhawks.com/battlecruisers.htm & http://www.chuckhawks.com/heavy_cruisers.htm |
December 22, 2007 - 11:21pm | In our continuing game the fourth Sather war is in full
swing. There are many ships in the fray. One battle had at least one
hundred ships put into units, including fighters, which were
thick-as-bugs-on-a-windshield. It took many years of trial and error
for the simplest form of mass combat to come to being. Even the ship
construction and engines had to change. In our game all engine stats
are up one. And as far as building dreadnoughts, not as big as your
talking about. Might as well paint a bulls-eye on it. A slow ship in
our battles would be scrap in minutes. Have you posted your modified construction rules anywhere? |
December 23, 2007 - 12:03am | Yes I have seen that article and we have played using those items. In our conclusion that equipment severely throws the game out of balance. If you can not see the out of balance. It's beginning to look a lot like Star Trek (Star Wars). I will not use these things in my game when the existing rules already provide better protection than the E-shield. And a fusion bomb that is that unstable. Only a desperate fool would use something like that. I will just use modified mines. "Scotty we need those deflectors" please if I want to play Star Trek I will go get the game. If you want to use this stuff you have entered a hybrid of SF, ST, and SW. Sorta SFTW'ish wouldn't you think even if it was wrote by the original people. Anyway, all you had to do is send an article to dragon and they would probably publish it, because if I remember right it was a fanzine. It was bad enough when ZG came out with the "bap bin" SF's version of transporters. Anyway, have fun if you can embrace these there is no more argument from me. If anyone is offended by what I have here. I am truly sorry. I will no long post in here. As long as you have fun. I would like to keep Star Frontiers as original feeling as possible. |
December 23, 2007 - 12:58am | I hope that you have noticed, there are many different flavors of rules on this site -- some canon, others with many house rules, each with flavors different folks like. Shadow Shack started this off with a discussion of big ships from his house rules. We all discussed how it may / may not work -- you didn't like big ships at all, I threw out an idea that IMO might help in big ship design in someone's house rule. I'm sorry if you feel you can't be a part of these discussions -- I personally appreciate the different ideas and points of view folks, including yourself, present on these boards. I just didn't like the tone of some coments, not the ideas behind them.... |
December 23, 2007 - 5:25am | If anyone is offended by what I have here. I am truly sorry. I will no
long post in here. As long as you have fun. I would like to keep Star
Frontiers as original feeling as possible. You just had one little thing that was only modestly offensive to jag, Gilbert, and he only made a request to keep it on the level. You're fine. You don't seem to be a trouble-maker to me, and I'm sure you don't to anyone else, so stick around. Your input is valued.Also, I don't think Gilbert is entirely speaking against big ships. He's just speaking against them as primary battle elements. He has recognized the importance of carriers, which are not put into the thick of battle, but which are kept outside the realm of battle, though are occassionally targeted for ferrying the fighters. As such, you could have your size 30-50 carrier hull. Just don't toss such size ships into the thick of battle. I concur. However, one interesting use came to mind. A large ship could easily dominate a small skirmish (as opposed to a large battle). If, though, they roam in on a small skirmish that suddenly turns into a large skirmish because of ambush or whatnot, then such a ship would be in trouble. Also, a large ship might be able to strike as a moble base, conducting very long range attacks, as well as being a base of operatiions (though this seems like the purpose of a carrier, perhaps combining a carrier with a battleship, though this might make the carrier a larger target by making it an offensive vessel). |
December 23, 2007 - 11:40am | In my game I do have rules to build bigger then HS 20. It is simple really. After HS 20 they have to be designed in increments of 5 HS's such as 25, 30, 35, and so on. All in all these ships still move at ADF/MR 2/2 no less than 2/1 how ever the fuel cost is not the bill I like to see. So far the largest ship in my game is a HS 30 mod asteroid. the average size in all the ships, yes all the ships literally is 12. If you play in your game as a freight hauler, space-liner, or run a mining adventure, you will get a very good idea of the most cost effective designs. |
December 25, 2007 - 12:11pm | Crikey, I go away for a few days and this turns into a dreadnought-sized discussion! Where to begin... Hull Sizes --- I do like Corjay's idea of the separate classification (HS:D3 instead of HS:30), although perhaps throw in a decimal system for "in-betweener" sizes ? Like HS:D2.5 for "25" and simply go with factors of 5 instead of ten as Glibert suggests. Fuel costs --- naturally anything sporting atomic drives is going to be a pricy endeavor, especially with multiple drives. A battleship will need 80,000Cr worth of fuel pellets for a single jump versus a three engine destroyer's 30K worth of fuel for the same jump. Granted the C drive can make more jumps between overhauls (and even moreso on the D,E, & F drives), but it's still pricy nonetheless. |
December 25, 2007 - 2:37pm | Hull Sizes --- I do like Corjay's idea of the separate classification
(HS:D3 instead of HS:30), although perhaps throw in a decimal system
for "in-betweener" sizes ? Like HS:D2.5 for "25" and simply go with
factors of 5 instead of ten as Glibert suggests. FWIW, having only numbers makes it easier for calculations if one tries to create a spreadsheet or other tool. Also, one scale makes it a little easier to determine relative size. |
December 25, 2007 - 4:10pm | We don't use our rules very often, however, in our rules for every 5 points over HS 20 you have to do a minimum hull damage of 2 or better for the hull to be damaged. So, with that in mind a hull size 50 would need to be hit with more than 7 points for the damage to even penetrate the hull. Less than that and only hull damage is done until the hull damage exceeds half of the total hull points. And for more advanced drives, why bother with that when the ship will be the grand prize for the enemy. Just hope the darn thing survives. I'll put it to this way, we run super haulers, kinda like the super tankers of nowadays. They are just huge and slow. but if you get them where they're going they make a big difference. |
