 January 5, 2012 - 9:29am | This topic isn't started to allow people to bash RPG companies, rather, it's intended to discuss how we have been able to keep Star Frontiers alive these last few years. Even though we don't own the Star Frontiers intellectual property, we have a tangible product to be proud of. But. What happens when were gone? Will w00t Jr. take up the Editorship? Will Little Iggy Spud grow up to be a Real Dralasite? Will jedion's force powers pass onto his offspring? Quote from page 3: Not all gamers are so optimistic. "I think the tabletop RPG market is enduring a kind of death. I think it is transforming into something that isn't a viable commercial business for more than a handful of people," said Ryan Dancey, former VP of RPGs at Wizards and marketing guru at White Wolf/CCP. Dancey was instrumental in developing the OGL before the 3rd edition era of D&D, but he foresees the RPG industry becoming a dead hobby like model trains. "Kids stopped playing with trains, and the businesses that remained dedicated to hobbyists who got more disposable income as they grew up, until the price of the hobby was out of reach of anyone except those older hobbyists. Eventually, it became a high-end hobby with very expensive products, sold to an ever-decreasing number of hobbyists. As those folks die, the hobby shrinks. That is what is happening to the tabletop RPG business." What's your opinion? What do you see in the future of the Star Frontiersman and starfrontiers.US? |
 January 15, 2012 - 2:41pm | So what are we updating? If not the game mechanics than what? One thing I clearly remember is the chrono-comms. Yes in 1982 having a phone on your wrist sounded great. Of course the actual trend went the other way and watch sales are down as most people get time on thier comm (cell or smart phone). So what are we updating? Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
 January 15, 2012 - 2:46pm | Like I said...terminology. That, and a revamp of the KH ship design rules, and possibly skills as well. The setting doesn't need much work, the mechanics really don't need any work. |
 January 15, 2012 - 4:57pm | So what are we updating? If not the game mechanics than what? One thing I clearly remember is the chrono-comms. Yes in 1982 having a phone on your wrist sounded great. Of course the actual trend went the other way and watch sales are down as most people get time on thier comm (cell or smart phone). So what are we updating? Well, ST (Roddenberry's gem) *did* get it right. Only, more so... If its anything like Top Secret, Gangbusters, Gamma World, etc., I'll pass on it too... I also am tired of the money syphon that has the facepaint of a game update\newer version... "If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" -A Einstein |
January 15, 2012 - 9:01pm | The SF setting it awesome, I love it. AD mechanics I can play, needs house rules to capture some of the elements I like to see in the games I run. Some of which has been published in the fanzine. :-) I personally feel the game mechanics of SF need to be revamped. In my opinion, the d00 System captures the feel of SF while bringing the game to a modern audience. With a game system that is open and supported I think you'll see more people playing SF. Especially if we introduce it to Frontiersman and new people via online, Cons, home games, etc. |
January 15, 2012 - 10:51pm | TSR already tried to revamp SF mechanics (re: Zeb's). I'm not so sure I'd trust WOTC to do any better than that miserable attempt. |
 January 16, 2012 - 12:06am | I have been reading this thread and I would agree with those who say to keep it simple with the rules and develop a solid setting for SF. Whatever we have experienced with rule changes and new systems has cost us money. I was a big fan of Gamma World and Star Frontiers, but SF just passed away for a long time. GW came back but it was like reincarnation with bad luck. I am glad I found the SF revival and enjoy all that is offered with love for free. For me, simplicity of play is essential. As pointed out, many make house rules, come up with settings and the like. So having a core rules setting for basic play and then adding modules for the rest makes sense to me. The cost is another aspect that I think the gaming industry has complicated. Hasbro still pumps out board games. Most of the time they are economical to purchase. Especially at Christmas time. Creating a new fan base is how to keep the game alive. I think that with the amount of creativity on the SF websights that are out there, the fan base exists for just that, a base to start. The next step would be to find a way to encourage others to become a part of that fan base. How did each of us get interested in RPG's in the first place. I was drawn in in elementry school (late 70's, early 80's, I'm getting old). I went to a friends sleep over birthday party and we played GW. I was hooked. So, it really is about the settings, not only in the game, but in the real world part too. How it is presented as an opportunity for fellowshiping with friends and family has been a big draw. Except for solitair, I think most card and board games are multiplayer. And even in video games now you see that single player is not how to really experience any of the best games. Multiplayer usually has more options to enjoy. So I believe that if development and marketing were directed toward that, it would be a more profitable business. |
January 16, 2012 - 5:48am | Setting is a major part of any game system. Taking a cue from some other games can anyone guess how many settings there are for Monopoly? There are more than 70. Each is produced because each sells. Trivial Pursuit is basically roll, ask, roll and not much different from children's games yet there are hundred's of versions. Not all are called Trivial Pursuit recently played one called Smart Ass which is just a simple variation. Now most RPGs are quite similar with some innovations over the years but it is always the setting which determines which ones we purchase. Now to add to that there is one thing which seems to show there is a future for RPGs. Ever notice that if a TV or Movie has some success they make an RPG for it. There are Serenity, MIB, Battlestar Galactica, Alien, Supernatural just to name a few. OK we don't get alot with these but we do get a new game to play with and it helps to introduce new people to the hobby with the tie in to the Movie/TV show. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
 January 16, 2012 - 10:53am | Yes, setting plays a small part, but I don't think the inudustry has suffered from a lack of decent setting. If you have two different settings in the same RPG system, yes, the setting is important, but if you have two different RPG systems under the same setting, what then? We all know that the majority of the market that has lingered on at this point enjoys the more complicated games, but the dominant market at the moment is over 20 and were taught the game by their parents or are over 30 and started with the simpler games of the 70's and 80's. Thus, that's a dwindling number each generation. What is needed is to appeal to the broader market by returning to the easier games of the 70's and 80's. Most people belong to the working class and spend most of their week not playing games. To appeal to those people, you need games that are easy to learn, easy to play, and reduce the amount of time it takes to play them. This doesn't mean those people are stupid. It means they prefer to keep their lives simple, as do I and many of us here. Setting in the current market is perfectly fine, as can be seen by no one complaining about the setting, thus it is inmaterial to the discussion at hand. (Though don't take that as not appreciating your view.) The gaming market is clearly suffering from issues not related to setting. The only other option, then, is the gaming system itself. No matter how you look at it, simpler games appeal to a wider audience. It seems to me to be kind of obvious that no one would want to play role-play Monopoly, especially if it had d20 3.5 mechanics. What they want to do is roll the dice and move on. The closer you get to that model, the more interest you're going to have in the game and the funner the game is going to be for people who don't have orgasms while doing math. What you referred to, ratt, is called "licensing" and they actually make less profit on licensed settings than on non-licensed settings. (WOTC has stated that Star Wars, the biggests money-making setting in history, made them less profit than their other properties and that all licensed property is the same way. And contrary to popular opinion, Lucas's licenses do not ask for more money than other licenses. In fact, all other licenses were born from Lucas's model. It seems to me that the only good licenses in the gaming market is a free license.) View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
January 16, 2012 - 1:03pm | Points taken. Now back to my original question what needs to be updated. Here's my choices: 1) Tell us where the homeworlds are. Maybe adventuring in the Frontier was the point but once you got past the pilot episode/season 1 (TV referencing again) it really became a huge whole in the back story. It wasn't like the Cylons nuked them out of existance. 2) Better timeline. Hang with me here. By Zeb's SWI was fought around 3-2 pf and SWII started in 80fy. OK we have 82 years here. Not bad lots of time to do stuff but Humans are supposed to live an average of 200 years. So your character could have jioned up to fight SWI and is now a ship captain in SWII. Infact when the timeline ends (when your supposed to start adventuring) your PC could have fought in SWI and only be in mid to late middle age. That assumed Human but even Yazirians would still be kicking. 3) Drop the "you have to be tenth level before even thinking of getting a Starship skill" thing. Even out the skill set which seems to make KH the Epic game while AD was only the Advanced. 4)This one is more personal than canon but let's have some better ship designs. If you don't have artificial gravity then why are all your designs made to look like you do? We have a dozen decks which require redundant floor and ceiling and air ducts and walls and such and have many small cramped compartments when one or two decks laid out properly would. In other words why are all the ships long and skinny when short and wide makes more sense? The Ag ship seems to understand this but have you ever thought of how you get the cargo off the merchant ships when they are stacked like this? Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 16, 2012 - 2:36pm | That's pretty much what I was getting at earlier. 1 & 2 could be blended in together. I personally don't have a problem with an 80 year span between sathar wars (moreso considering the 21 year span between our own WW1 & WW2), but I don't think the "end" of the timeline is where things should "begin" for the game. Just hammer out something that meshes better than what the Zeb's fiasco was (whose only accuracy was the 3rd Dramune War which coincided with the Dramune Run module, which I believe was purely an accident considering the rest of that mish mash of conflicting events). Players should be able to traverse the written "history"...just not the entire run. #3 --- the "elite" nature of KH actually made sense in the way KH was presented: not many ships in the Frontier. Seriously, look at how the 2nd sathar war board game is designed, the Frontier is severely undefended. Something like ten out of 27 populated worlds have ships, and then throw in roving Strike Force NOVA. Making ship skills easy to attain throws it into a Star Wars sense: "10,000 credits?! We could almost buy our own ship for that." "And who's gonna fly it, kid? You?!" "Sure! I'm not such a bad pilot, y..." See how that works? Some farmboy on a backwater world knows how to pilot a ship. Even his predecessor, a 10 year old slave boy, knew how to pilot ships ("all my life"). Having a ship suddenly loses its mystique if it's made too easy and everyone can do it. But some middle ground would definitely be of benefit. Which brings us to point #4 --- this is the be all/end all part that needs work. I honestly have no problem with the stacked deck arrangement, aside from scale/mapping issues on bigger ships. Seriously, try mapping a HS:12 craft...at 60m diameter that's a huge amount of space to fill, and you wrack your brain trying to figure out how to populate each deck...and soon realize the specced crew is way too small for such a large ship. I mean your HS:5 frigate can be done in about ten decks or so for a crew of 40, but you could get away with five on the HS:12 craft for a crew of 100 and still have plenty of left over space on each deck...not to mention acres of unused space in between each deck. With few exceptions the civilian ship rules worked. They still needed many definitions, but for overall game play/balance they worked. It falls apart with war ships though, there simply is no rhyme or reason behind their canon designs. You really have a difficult time creating something that fits in between the specced craft. MHS is a terrible system, a set volume system would make so much better sense. Once again, it boils down to volume...the ships were designed for game balance more than anything. I have to argue that the "pride of the UPF" battleships SHOULD be able to take out 4 frigates without issue...they're 266 times a frigate's size* so it stands to reason they should be able to accomodate 266 times a frigate's firepower in terms of allocated space for weaponry --- add up the total volume of weaponry as listed on the last page of the KH Campaign manual and a frigate has 260 cubic metere worth of weapons to a battleship's 860...the big battleship barely has more than three times the firepower despite all that extra space on the ship. Shoot, it's not even balanced in terms of "hull sizes"...at four times the HS the battleship only sports three times the firepower. * 100m x 15m = 17,663 cubic meters versus 600m x 100m = 4,710,000 cubic meters |
 January 16, 2012 - 3:57pm | Not to dispute the analysis of concerning setting, which holds a number of very good points but... I just want to point out a trend in the publishing industry: w00t spent a lot of time at cons this past year talking to game publishers and one thing they all said to him was "setting is important, not rules" when he shared that with me it struck a cord with a personal observation: My local gaming group (which includes individuals that work at Pilgrims Plantation or volunteer there) caught the itch to play a supernatural, Solomon Kane-ish role playing game called Witch Hunter. So we bought a couple copies of rule books then looked around the group for someone to GM. Naturally everyone had that stupid "huh" look on their faces so I vollunteered to GM. Every session I found myself doing tons of work to prep and became more and more fustrated and irritated because the fragging rules suck. The setting was assome and intriguing and made us want to play but after about four session I told everyone I was done- couldn't take it any more- rules were massively UN GM friendly and a serious pain- players were having fun but I couldn't take it anymore. The point is that many publishers are thinking this way they just dont care about the rules- SF is even an example of this- there are some quirky bits to the rules and yet most of us are here because we love the setting. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 16, 2012 - 5:26pm | I don't know, Jed...the rules for SF are pretty simple to digest. I've never had issue GMing a session of SF, let alone D&D. But I dislike DMing for AD&D and I wouldn't wish GMing Top Secret upon my worst enemies...and I really dig the setting of AD&D and Top Secret. |
January 16, 2012 - 6:49pm | I dislike DMing for AD&D and I wouldn't wish GMing Top Secret upon my worst enemies...and I really dig the setting of AD&D and Top Secret. exactly what gaming company execs are thinking that it doesn't matter about the rules. Get a good setting and the nerds will pony up the cash. They just dont care about the game and figure why waste time on something that is not going to sell the product, when in their opinion its the setting that sells the product and in the case of my wargaming group that is exactly what happened with witch hunter, crappy half baked rules- not quite that bad, as the basic dice mechanic is not so bad but everything else the GM has to deal with is fragged. I'm just saying this is a common thought out there and is demonstratable in numerous RPGs that are or could be interesting but are lousy game systems. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 17, 2012 - 6:25am | Have a long work day ahead so can't answer everything but one point I will hit now is again how the KH skill rules unbalance the game. Skill Level 6 is the highest you can go. For Medical PSA if your character is a doctor (general practitioner) they (at least in my view) would need level 4 with levels 5 and 6 for those who are above average/exceptional (House would be Level 6 in a few areas). Now you have KH which states you need to be the ultimate expert in something before you can even think about taking it. Piloting is a good example. You need Technician 6 in order to take Piloting 1. At Technician 6 your base chances are: Operating Machinery---110% Repairing Machinery---100% Detecting Alarms/Defenses---120% Deactivating Alarms/Defenses---100% Opening Locks---110% If you are that good at something why would you give it up to start a completely different career? Also this means every pilot is that good. Every ship has a someone who is so good at repairing equipment why hire a lower level but doesn't because they are flying the ship. Why would a ship not have Level 6 security programs when every single Astrogator can install them? Why have common marines when every energy gunner has been an instructor at Marine Sniper School? Using Star Wars for anything other than an example of the coming Apocalypse is never a good idea. Having this skill goes to character background. Here's how the PC roll up session would have gone with me. OK what's your character. He's named Han Solo, he's the smuggler pilot with a heart of gold and has Pilot 2 Energy Weapon 1 OK sounds good and your character George? He's a psionic hidden from his pyschotic father on a backwoods (sand) planet and has Melee Weapons 2 and Pilot 1. Ah where did he learn Piloting if he grew up on a farm. Oh I thought it would be cool so I took it. It makes no sense for your character background. He grew up no where he could learn this. Why not take Technician 1 since he had to repair alot of high tech farm equipment. No I want him to be a pilot. How about Driving 1 or Beam Weapons 1 both make sense for your character. No I want Pilot 1 Then you have to change your character background how about being Han Solo's partner? OK I will do that. Why did you add four cases of shampoo to my equipment list? Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 17, 2012 - 11:16am | @ rattraveller: I think most people go with the sfman articles "A Skilled Frontier" and "Spacer Skills Revisited" as house rules now its the way the skills should have been written in the first place IMO. Even if you're still using Zebs for some reason I have little doubt that those doing that wouldn't go with a "Spacer Skills Revisited" as a strap on fix for the lack of spacer skills. Those two articles taken together effectively eliminate 99.99% of all the complaints or whining that I've ever heard concerning the skills system. (and most of that fell into the variety of "Why cant I have a star ship as a starting character?") Skilled frontier widens out the ability to create any character concept- no more do you have to be an environmentalist to have a scout character. The biggest areas needing work are KHs and the AD vehicle combat rules IMO. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 17, 2012 - 3:23pm | My personal skill system is a bit more complex but definitive. When a player adds the Technician skill he gets all the subskills at lvl-0 (meaning he/she gets no skill modifier toward base chance) and improves them separately . I also added some subskills, such as vehicle operation and vehicle repair, separate from machinery opration & machinery repair. As such, the character can rapdily advance to expert level in one subskill quickly...so he can become an expert driver or expert locksmith etc. Yes, the XP system is also revamped --- for example 1XP gets you several lvl-1 subskills or raise one lvl-1 subskill to lvl-2 etc...and even the old 4XP model would get you to lvl-1 in all subskills and raise one to lvl-2...so it remains relatively balanced according to AD rules with the difference being it promotes either becoming a "specialist" or raising everything together at the player's whim. As such, to become a KH pilot in my game you merely need to rise up to lvl-6 in vehicle operation and lvl-6 machinery operation, along with a couple lvl-2 computer subskills. So it doesn't take forever but at the same time it isn't instantaneous either. And just so the military PSA skills weren't left out (the weapons skills remain the same in my game), I threw in a few Tech & BioSocial subskills into the mix such as vehicle operation and repair from the technician, access/operate computers and display information from the Comp skill, stealth and concealment from the Envrio skill, and a couple of the basic medical subskills to reflect basic non-combat military skills....all of which advance as the weapon skills. So while a militant PSA character can have some of those nifty skills, he won't advance as rapidly in them nor will he become eligible for the tech ship skills. |
January 17, 2012 - 8:19pm | OK here we go. 1) Please don't reference a Star Frontiersman article without listing which issue its in. Still looking for the one mentioned. 2) The idea is that Spacers are a super-intellectual elite compared to Earth bound goons might work in some settings. Maybe that is why enlisted are considered scum and officers heroes in Spacefleet. Officers are geniuses who graduated the Academy in 2 years with TWO starship skills (one at level 2). In straight numbers a grad with Pilot 2 and Energy Gunnery 1 has (assuming they started at Tech 2 Beam Weapons 1 PSA Tech) 222 skill points gifted to them. Any ex-military ever meet a 2nd Lt/Ensign that smart? Also begs the question what do all those enlisted do since they could not be smart enough to be Pilots, Engineers, Astrogaters or even Gunners. 3) This elite designation eliminates tramp steamers. Sorry gang Han Solo could not exist in SF he would never have learned how to fly a starship or win one in a poker game and Geordi's family would never have let him join Star Fleet they would have invested to much in him to let him go. Any game setting I have must have a simpler system of learning to fly starships because if only elite can fly them pirating is right out the window. Seriously beings skilled enough to fly starships in the KH way would not waste their lives pirating. The risk to reward ratio is way out of whack and they would be in too much demand to spend their time hiding out in dank, dark asteroid bases. 4) The base skills make no sense to the Starship skills. Why must you be a genius at fixing machines to fly a Starship? Isn't fixing the ship the Engineer's job? Navy guys can you tell me how being able to shoot an M16 qualifies you to shoot the big guns on a battleship (Projectile weapons qualifying you to fire rockets). Being able to write programs is great but should you know something about space if you are going to be an Astrogator? 5) Dump the prerequisite skills and make Starship skills completely separate. Add minimum skill levels. Tie in background to skill. Whatever just don't try and make Spacers spit and polish walking computers. We need our John Canyons much more than our Captain Picards. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 18, 2012 - 6:28am | Again I think your confusing moral character with intelligence when it comes to the rift raft designation of enlisted. And even then the rift raft-ness is probably an under current or else the service could not function very well. My appolohgies: SFman 9 "skilled frontier" and sFman 10 "spacer skills revisited" NOTE: spacer skills revisited is keyed to AD skill system but is easily adapted to skilled frontier. I've been toying with the idea that cybernetic or bionics skill (remember those from Zebs Guide?) should be advanced skills like spacer skills requiring foundation skills like medical and robotics before they can be taken but on a pattern like that in the Space skills Revisited article. I also dont think that a dead eye marksman is what is needed to fire ship based weapons. Ship based or call it "station based" weapons should be a skill that only requires 1 level of computer and allows a character to sit in a silo command center and operate planetary defense weapons, in a tank and operate the main gun or on a star ship and operate the ships weapons. In these situation its not about how well you can aim like you do when holding a rifle but about getting a proper lock on a target which can often be about defeating electronic counter measures. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 18, 2012 - 10:05am | @Jed you missed some of my points. Exactly shooting a laser rifle is nothing like firing a laser battery but you can't do it until you are the best shot in the world which doesn't make sense. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 18, 2012 - 10:47am | 4) The base skills make no sense to the Starship skills. Why must you be a genius at fixing machines to fly a Starship? Isn't fixing the ship the Engineer's job? See my prior post, just before the one I'm quoting from. I did away with all that...and it makes your Han Solo scenario much more doable...and at the same time Han still has those base subskills allowing him to make attempts at fixing things (like he was constantly doing in ESB). |
 January 18, 2012 - 11:22am | On those ships the enlisted wear red uniforms....just saying. I agree that KH really seems to be a whole other game and its Skill system needs alot to be desired. I tend to agree that the pre-requisites are to high, but instead of scraping them, why not just say that characters wanting space ship skills should have level one in all the pre-requisite skill areas save the one that is most important to their spacer PSA (pilot, gunner, engineer etc) which should be level two. This way characters can say that they learned an introductory level in the base skills needed and then got graduate training in the areas that are most relivent to their field. This means that character who wants to be a pilot must spend about 12 experience points before he can even become a level one pilot, which means he'll need to survive quite a few adventures (around 5 or 6 depending on how generous the Referee is) before he can even think of piloting a system ship. "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
January 18, 2012 - 12:38pm | System vs Star ship is another beef- the basics are pitch, yaw, and etc. that doesn't change from system ship to star ship- skill increase should simply qualify you for larger ships regardless of engine output. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 18, 2012 - 2:50pm | System vs Star ship is another beef- the basics are pitch, yaw, and etc. that doesn't change from system ship to star ship- skill increase should simply qualify you for larger ships regardless of engine output.
...and just to throw another wrench into that engine - the AD rules state on p.15 that a lvl-6 technician can "operate rocket powered machines"...re: chem drive craft, re: shuttles & system ships. Which is probably why KH mandates lvl-6 technician as a pre-req for pilot, although the system ship/starship contradiction still exists: "You need to be lvl-1 pilot to fly that shuttle." "Why? I can do that as a lvl-6 technician. You're telling me I need to get another skill to do what I can already do? " ... " "Fine, I'll spend the XP on lvl-1 pilot. Just how big of a ship can I fly?" "Any system ship up to HS:20." "What's the ADF on system ships?" "One." "What's the ADF of that HS:3 scout ship with a pair of ion drives?" "One." "So let me get this straight...I can pilot a 600 meter long dreadnaught with rocket engines that has the same performance as that ion driven 50 meter scout ship, but I can't pilot the itty-bitty scout ship? In other words, I can helm the Exxon Valdez but I can't handle a pontoon boat?!" " ... " Aside from that ship qualification inconsistency, at the very least the KH rules were consistent in the pre-req skills between rulebooks. I mean, they could have gone the Zeb's route and stated something silly like "You need the lvl-6 skill and MUST be a TechEx, there is no way in hell that an Enforcer can EVER learn these skills." |
January 18, 2012 - 3:15pm | I find this helpful when looking something up Star Frontiersman Subject Index |
 January 18, 2012 - 5:12pm | I would like to see more games designed with simple interchange-able mechanics. Adaptable settings, with one or two core rule books that are no more than 50 pages long. Now such a game system could have as many setting books and expansions as the players could stand. I don't like settings that lock you into one directional thinking and rules that don't let you as the GM craft the game universe as you see fit. For these reasons its pretty obvious why Zeb's would never do. |
January 18, 2012 - 5:16pm | Could you tell that to White Wolf. I am shocked that they have some of the most popular horror games but have so little inter-playability in them. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 19, 2012 - 5:06am | Shadow Shack, did you see my Super Massive Starship/Space Station Plans thread in your Deck Plans project? View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
January 19, 2012 - 11:45am | Somehow I missed that. Still, regardless of scale/detail when you try a bigger SF ship you'll quickly see that you have waaaay too much space remaining. Seriously, I did a HS20 freighter when I was younger, and even if I had ramped the crew from 20 to 100 there's still a lot of voids in the ship. Moreso if it were a battleship, because the battleship wouldn't benefit from the space-chewing cargo holds. Put into perspective, that HS20 craft has a 100m diameter, a bit longer than a football field. And each one of those football fields will be spanning a 600m long craft...you could feasibly make it 20 decks and have far more space than you'll ever need for a crew of 400 --- and still have tons of empty spaces between the decks. |
January 19, 2012 - 7:38pm | Could you make adjustment for fitting fighters and scout craft? View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
January 20, 2012 - 5:24pm | Could you make adjustment for fitting fighters and scout craft? But the thing I'm getting at here is even with a crew of 400, that battleship lacks the massive cargo holds my freighter had (two holds that basically took up half the ship)...so there will be lots of extra unused space that wasn't on my freighter --- which still had lots of extra unused space. Swapping those two holds for a few decks that accomodate an extra 300 or so crew and throw in an extra deck or two for the various additional battery weapons (which technically could all be operated from one deck, but for the sake of filling up space...), it just doesn't make up the volume difference. Seriously, think about it...we're talking decks that are as wide as a football field is long. Drop a second football field across the first to make a cross shape and connect the corners --- it still isn't the same amount of space as our round 100m diameter deck. Now ask yourself this...can you comfortably accomodate 400 people within that space? You can build quite a few single story Holiday Inns within that space. Now look up to a distance of six football field lengths and consider how many more similar sized decks you can stack up (but don't need) in that space. |
