 June 9, 2013 - 4:45am | Since I tend to compare alot of SF to the Civil War here's another one As we all know many parts of SF and KH were to put it mildly simplified to make it better suited for younger gamers. This is why we have identical ships for both sides, which at first may seem unrealistic. During American Civil War both sides were using the same ships and same weapons. So we are covered here. One thing not covered in at least some detail is the more specific detail was the types of ships. Some work has been down trying to get more race specific details but there is another aspect of ship building not really mentioned. During the Civil War there were three different navies. Not sides but types of ships. They were: Brown Water-Ships for the rivers Blue Water-Ocean going vessels Green Water-Intermediate ships for both river and limited sea, mostly coastline work For those who are not aware these classifications were needed because of the different drafts, hulls and types of missions the vessels needed to perform. In KH we have similar need for different vessels based on area of operations and missions. Brown-those never meant to leave the solar system they are assigned to IE System Ships Blue-Spacefleet vessels which need to frequently travel between systems and off into deep unihabitant space IE Battleships Green-Those which serve in one particular system but can move to another if needed. IE Assualt Scouts Now translating this into game terms would mean Militias which all seem to have ships dedicated to being handed over to Spacefleet and leaving themselves defenseless. Brown ships could fill this role with more space toward weapons and less toward unneeded engines Frigates and Destroyers would be the biggest ships to flip flop between Brown, Blue and Green. Each type would have differing speed and weapons Cruisers and Battleships would almost always be Blue but one converted to Brown could be devastating. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
 June 9, 2013 - 5:11am | Well I think you are talking about KHs 2.0 here I like the idea of militias having ships that are optimized for system defense and have devistating fire power over engine capability. If you think about it, a scout ship is rather silly to be the primary militia hull in the militia's of the Frontier but then KHs was put together to spotlight a ship that would be ideal for the average RPG group to use. And calling it an assault scout? so in essence its designed for two separate rolls but doesn't really meat the requirements of either- as a scout ship it sucks- where is the lab and the hi tech scan equipment for sneak and peak? When it can land but it lacks a proper air lock to prevent contamination of the ship when the floor hatch is lowered to the ground. Then as an assault platform? ok it has assault rockets but lacks the ability to soak up damage in an assault. Its more like a ballet dancer when it should be a linebacker. But I get it; calling it an assault scout somehow made it sound cool. My cousin bought a Mustang because it was cool. It was a fixer upper and how so even though he had a Mustang no one wanted to ride to the beach with him in the "Sh_t-stang" that was pee yellow in color and all his friends ragged on it till he got it repainted in fire engine red. I'm all for taking a hard look at the ships of the frontier. system defense design formats Fighters with roles and different weapon mixes- the A-10 vs the F16 and so on a proper scout ship and a proper assault craft/gun boat. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 June 9, 2013 - 12:09pm | I agree that there should be ships of the different types. However, the simplification of the rules that rattraveller talks about aren't conducive to it. You could give system ships cheaper ion engines but then they only have 1 ADF, not a good idea for a system defense ship. Chemical engines have full ADF but not much fuel, again not a great idea. There really isn't a tradeoff in engines (in the existing rules) from atomic engines for warships. Those trade offs work fine for utility ships and the rules sort of imply that those types of ships are using the cheaper drives. Plus without some sort of device required to initiate a void jump, any ship with enough fuel and life support is theoretically jump capable. You just have to get up to speed and off you go. So even "system ships" could protentially make hops to nearby systems. They might not have the best astrogation equipment for the job but that would at worst provide a negative modifier, maybe making it like a risk jump even with the 10 hours per light year of prep. In any case, there should be different types of ships, but it might, as jedion357 said, really take a rewrite of the rules to make it more reasonable. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 June 10, 2013 - 2:24am | I personally think the KH rules need a *major* overhaul. I highly recommend the ship design systems used in Terminal Space and
Stars Without Numbers. You take a basic framework (e.g. "Frigate",
"Cruiser", "Capital Ship") which has all the basic features
(windows, intercoms, quarters, elevators, etc.) built-it, and the
designer can add-on additional equipment within the limits
of what the frames allows (e.g. SWN has "Power" for power-hungry
systems, "Hardpoints" for weapon-slots, and "Free Space" for area that
could be used for cargo or extra equipment.). This is *much* better then bean-counting
mass/square volume and all the little, superficial stuff that should be a
given for any ship!!! Since I use "warp-drive" in my game, the destruction between "starship" and "system ship" is all in the matter of a ship's capability. I should point-out something that gets overlooked with the KH ships, is that even though there are only a hand-full of ship types (frigates, destroyers, etc.), each type have variations to them - although they differ by armaments and available technology (older versions have lasers as their primary weapon, while newer ships have protons and electrons weapons - this maybe seen as just basic/advanced rule variants, but I see them as legitimate time-scale variants). Variants should have their own names. Hell, Ships should have names like CMS Osprey (AS-3), Stiletto-class, with "AS-3" meaning "Assault Scout #3" of the Clarion Royal Marines, and "Stiletto-class", being a type of Assault Scout ship. There also needs to be addressed, the lack of axillary ships in the game (besides Minelayers and Assault Transports). Although there was a great article about the UPF Signal Corps and the ships they use, we need to expand on the idea and make more logistical-support ships. I also agree that assessment about the Assault Scouts being given the one-size-fits-all treatment. In truth, that type of ships was widely used throughout the Frontier, and at different time periods. A ship like that would have a ton of variations to suit what role that is needed for any given force, location or era. There should be variants like patrol-boats (with marine crew and strong docking gear), gunboats (with more guns), bombers (with torpedoes), scouts ships (with better sensors and less weapons), packets (for moving dignitaries or special cargo quickly), and so on. They deserve a better name than just "Assault Scout," if they be refitted for different roles - like corvette, patrol ship or something else to that effect. Oh and militia patrol ships should never operate alone. In The Warriors of White Light, the CMS-Osprey was defenseless when they docked with a freighter on routine patrol and inspection. The freighter was ran by pirates or smugglers, who pulled-out a hidden laser turret. Had there been a back-up ship, it could have crippled or disarmed the enemy ship. Then again, the UPF and militia fleets were always light on available ships, then what was really needed (and for the sake of how many ship counters available in the box set). |
 June 10, 2013 - 4:15am | I personally think the KH rules need a *major* overhaul. I highly recommend the ship design systems used in Terminal Space and
Stars Without Numbers. You take a basic framework (e.g. "Frigate",
"Cruiser", "Capital Ship") which has all the basic features
(windows, intercoms, quarters, elevators, etc.) built-it, and the
designer can add-on additional equipment within the limits
of what the frames allows (e.g. SWN has "Power" for power-hungry
systems, "Hardpoints" for weapon-slots, and "Free Space" for area that
could be used for cargo or extra equipment.). This is *much* better then bean-counting
mass/square volume and all the little, superficial stuff that should be a
given for any ship!!! I was just going to suggest the Stars Without Number system as a jumping off point but I see that Malcadon beat me to it. Very simple system. I'm seriously considering going over to it wholesale in my setting because it is so concise. There are classes of hull, and then variants within that class based on utility. So one could have a frigate class hull, but it could be a free trader, or an armored troop ship, etc. depending on the build out. The core rules are free - worth a look. I also got the SWON supplement "Skyward Steel" which details campaign settings using stellar navies - really good plot seed ideas there, and additional ship and space station types - including costs. |
June 10, 2013 - 6:02am | Interesting that peeps are mentioning Stars Without Number because there is a WIP series to convert SWON for the Star Frontiers setting and publish said conversion in FE. If you message me an interest in reviewing the conversion and promise feedback I'll email it to you as I finish each installment. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
June 10, 2013 - 7:01am | Interesting that peeps are mentioning Stars Without Number because there is a WIP series to convert SWON for the Star Frontiers setting and publish said conversion in FE. If you message me an interest in reviewing the conversion and promise feedback I'll email it to you as I finish each installment.
OOOH! Great idea! I'm already using a lot of SWON in my setting because it is such a similar type of game, other than the d20 system, obviously. But the system is a wealth of ideas to steal. |
 June 10, 2013 - 9:05am | I think the Knight Hawks rules are generally well done. They are consistent with the generic nature of the Alpha Dawn rules and leave a lot of room for customization. When you have a tight ruleset and/or very specific background information, players are reluctant to go against canon. While if you establish general rules with lots of white space in-between, players have a good time filling in the blanks to suit their tastes. |
 June 11, 2013 - 10:50am | I always found Knight Hawks to be fairly incompatible with Alpha Dawn. The skills complicate things unecessarily, and there is no Character level to ship or ship to character level damage conversion. How much damage does a KH ship do in Alpha Dawn? "I dunno. Guess." You have to be trained at NASA to fly a ship, which even back then, was unrealistic. But it did fit in with Alpha Dawn's no-fly (spaceships) rule. A person does not have to be a fighter pilot to fly a 747. So a person shouldn't have to fly a 747 to learn how to a fly a size 2 system ship. (For that matter, I never really did appreciate the Alpha Dawn mechanic progression either. In fact, they probably made the whole advanced skills thing so that they didn't have to rewrite the SF skills which wrote them into a corner.) I love Alpha Dawn, but in the AD relaunch in 83, they should have rewrote the skills to allow for space travel. Sure, KH is a moderately decent system on its own, (other than its lack of realism in movement,) but it feels badly ported from another system if you mix it with AD. It's best just to roll up you character in KH and forget about AD if you're going to use its advanced skills and don't bother with current STA. 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) |
June 10, 2013 - 5:44pm | And so you get fan rules that treat KHs skills as if they were AD skills. I've been of two minds on that though- scrap the pre-reqs altogether for KHs skills or use something like the Spacer Skills revisited article- though I think even that article could use an overhaul as it stayed tied to the KHs system too closely- All KHs skills require computer skill and possibly something else to take the spacer skill and it advances as the player wishes after the initial taking of the skill. Plus star ship weaponry skill is simply the same skill to operate planetary defenses, or to sit in a large vehicle and operate something like the main gun of a grav tank. Also its all one skill no two separate gunnery skills. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
June 10, 2013 - 8:44pm | Yeah, overall KH has absolutely no synergy with AD and little to nothing in common with it. (Beyond using percentile dice.) A new system using SWON, or any other conversion, couldn't be any worse. 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) |
June 10, 2013 - 10:58pm | I would not mind KH, if the ship design process was at all workable. Its like they design the ships from the wargame first, with lots of other ideas for the Campaign Book made independently, then they shoehorned the content in rough fashion. The wargame ships are incompatible with the CB, as the ship design is focused on civilian ships, with no options for military types. They also add a lot of core and secondary equipment that should be a given for all designs, with the option of just not having some of them. (It all plays out like Castle Construction in the AD&D, where in Expert D&D, you can buy walls and towers with all the little stuff included). They tried make process easier with adjusting the speed and maneuverability, and weapon placement, but it still comes off as counter-intuitive. The beauty with something like SWON and TS, is that you can start with some core ships and set them as templates for other designs. Design wise, a Frigate and Destroyer almost identical - the Frigate is like a scaled-back Destroyer, with less armaments and more speed, for example. Take a basic frame, add a few things, make-up some fluff, and BLAM! A new ship! That is how ship design should work. |
June 11, 2013 - 8:08am | The beauty with something like SWON and TS, is that you can start with some core ships and set them as templates for other designs. Design wise, a Frigate and Destroyer almost identical - the Frigate is like a scaled-back Destroyer, with less armaments and more speed, for example. Take a basic frame, add a few things, make-up some fluff, and BLAM! A new ship! That is how ship design should work.
Agreed - I am actually moving my campaign to a point where I am going to fast forward the tech level a bit so I can justify making the change to a different system for ships. |
June 11, 2013 - 3:29pm | Would like to see a different ship design system. One request I am not a fan of the stacked deck designs. The decks are just too small and limited. Would like to be able to have long hallways as seen in the Serena Dawn and the Omicron missions deck plans. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
June 11, 2013 - 4:22pm | Personally I like the stacked decks but there is actually nothing in the rules that say you can't have the larger decks like you mentioned. Although you probably wouldn't have them on a starship that is also capable of landing on a planet with the current system. You just have to have a ship that is squat and fat instead of long and cylindrical. Or you have to introduce artifical gravity.  There's no reason you couldn't design a ship that had large decks like the original Serena Dawn deck plan. That deck was 19x31 meters in size. Assuming the vertical size is 5 meters (3 meteres for head room and 2 for machinery and flooring) you could fit 6 decks that size into a hull size 5 hull. It would be almost square. 31 meters wide, 19 meters deep and 30 meters tall. Actually only the smaller ships like the Assault scout are cramped. Even by the time you get to a HS 5 ship, the "typical" diameter is 15 m. You can get some pretty big hallways in that much space and it only gets bigger as you go to large hull sizes. A battleship has 100m diameter decks (think two football fields side by side). Plenty of opportunities for long halls and mazes just on a single deck and there are probably about 100-120 of them in the ship all told. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
June 12, 2013 - 11:29am | I find the only way to justify the ship turning rules in KH, is the use of artificial gravity-fields. That is, the ship generates a field of artificial gravity pushing everything towards the aft, and should the ship make a turn, the entire alignment of the field has to readjust to the new heading, but the built-up momentum of the old heading would now be detected towards the new heading. Oh and the crew can operate normally at any speed. (It never made sense to me how combat ships can operate in 10 minute intervals at speeds that would hinder - or kill outright - even real-life astronauts and fighter pilots!) Yeah, artificial gravity may not be "realistic," but adding technology that applies "glitches" to real life physics could add a different degree of realism, if done right. |
June 12, 2013 - 11:46am | Using a gravity field to counter movement effects is called inertial dampening. 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) |
June 12, 2013 - 11:47am | I agree the boardgame rules are a little wonky. I've never liked MR, it's just not physically possible, period, except at really low speeds. And changing the scale from 10,000 km to 3,600 km instantly makes 1 ADF = 1g. But the boardgame is still fun. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
