Subject:
|
Re: Rules Talk: JumpShip Ideas
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming.starship
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 May 2003 00:22:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2045 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.gaming.starship, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> If I may interject, as someone who's mulling over
> joining up (unless my lack of any actual Brick at
> the moment is an intent-killer) and has read the
> rules as a fresh outsider:
Heck no! Get in here :-)
> Ferries (or "tenders" as my High Guard-bent brain
> tends to think of them) were precisely the issue
> that I thought about as reading the rules and the
> NG discussions last night. Carriers aren't such a
> concern because the fighter craft are clearly sub-
> ordinate, but the ferry is another matter. I would
> tend to think that, given the rarity of true gate
> drives, that they would be "destabilized" if they
> increase by a great mass over their empty size.
> Those are precision instruments, after all, not
> enormous "public" JumpGates for which a gigantic
> warship is a tiny speck of mass that can be offset
> easily. That right there would probably rule out
> ten..er, Ferries, because unlike a carrier that
> carries perhaps 8-10% of its mass as fighter craft
> (and those at all times) a tender would carry 60
> to 80 per cent of its mass as indepenedent and
> temporary ships. Allowing ferry JumpShips ("GateShips?")
> would seem severely unbalancing unless a *further*
> cost were added (with concomitant complexity, yuck).
> I'd suggest close the door on Ferries with gating
> capability that can carry more than one pre-designated
> ship (like K-T drives in BattleTech's, well, "JumpShips").
> But, of course, as an outsider, feel free to tell
> me to go soak my head. ;)
I agree completely.
> I presume there is no classification or limit on
> "ship sizes"--that these are fully subsumed into
> the three-tier qualitative system? (e.g., you can
> make that Death Star, but it's no better than any
> other HQ-stat in the galaxy, and just looks all the
> more ridiculous when it gets blown up by a flagship
> fighter?)
The tiers are more a guide to the GM and SMs, and other players.
The propulsion tiers impact on galactic movement, but not much on in-sector
movement (GM monitors and administers)
Sensors impact on the quality of in sector sensor detail and range (SMs
administer)
Weapons and armour impact on combat outcomes (SMs wield reality)
Of course a high weapons Death Star outguns a high weapons frigate, but knowing
that they are high weapons tells us more about their nature and capability.
Actual combat will be a battle of strategy, fortune and lucidity between two
storytellers and mediated by the SM :-)
> > > Ships with the lesser 'JumpGate Generator' type engines would have some
> > > more strategic options, and could get about the large distances of the map
> > > more speedily (max three weeks). It would also mean that a ship using its
> > > engines to create an adhoc exit gate would be isolated from JumpSpace for
> > > three weeks until the engines recharged.
> >
> > I do like the basic idea here. But I am concerned with the complexity of
> > how to explain it. I would rather keep the rules as simple as possible.
> > So a Medium JumpShip (or whatever name we want to give it) has a choice
> > between a three-week jump between any two points, or a one-week jump as
> > long as one of the two points is an existing Gate? Could work. I think
> > worrying about recharging times before and after is an extra complexity we
> > don't need in the rules. Plus it would add the requirement that the GM
> > would then need to spend more time tracking who is charged and who is not.
> > I'd rather leave recharge times out of it, and just say that the recharge
> > is included in the time required for the given jump. Otherwise, I like
> > your revised proposal.
>
> Or, perhaps, have it require two weeks in JumpSpace,
> irrespective of destination. That would still confer a
> benefit for the investment, without making it overpowering.
I dealt with the administration burden in a previous post. I guess I see
gameplay in the two different options, and would probably recommend keeping the
distinction. I'd be happy to write a treatise attachment to the rules on
JumpSpace, with worked examples to help out newbie galactic navigators :-)
> > With the number of ships flying about, it would be too much work for the GM
> > (IMO) to actually roll on a chart for every ship. But with JumpShips, and
> > there being never more than 5 per player, it would be easier to manage. As
> > current GM, I would be willing to put together a chart especially catered
> > to JumpSpace travel. The possibility of the unexpected actually would be
> > yet another way to prevent over-usage of JumpShips.
>
> If it can be made wieldy for the GM, then that sounds like
> a very neat idea.
>
> > > And Hendo's trying to integrate the thinking with the propulsion tiers is
> > > most laudable.
> >
> > Thank you. :) ...I have always liked the 3-tier system for describing
> > things for this game. I think one reason we left out discussing Jump rules
> > for so long is that they did not fit in perfectly with the 3-tier (we had
> > slow, medium, fast, and wait there's a fourth one!! ack!). So, I came up
> > with this latest plan of having them take up extra slots versus medium or
> > fast. ...The only other way to deal with it that I can think of would be
> > to add a new characteristic of JumpAbility to each ship, but then things
> > would just get messy (IMO).
>
> It's very easy to understand the basics. I will
> of course have questions about the specifics in
> due time, but I'm not at all in doubt that I can
> grok the Way Things Are™.
Grok on.
> Time to break out the MLCAD...o je.
>
> > (joking...)
> > Aha! So your support to revamp the JumpShip rules is nothing more than a
> > ploy to make New Pacific the most profitable sector in the galaxy! I
> > knew it!
>
> This is a surprise how? Arrr.
Methinks Lindsay may be TOO familiar with the origins of Port Block. Curses!
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rules Talk: JumpShip Ideas
|
| (...) Oooh! A thread with colors, and HEY! .starship has over 100 posts now! :) Oh, and Lindsay, as for lack of brick, ABS-related CAD are allowed. You may use any scale you like (mini-fig-, micro-, nano-, macro-, etc.). As for your interjections, (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.gaming.starship)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rules Talk: JumpShip Ideas
|
| Hi! If I may interject, as someone who's mulling over joining up (unless my lack of any actual Brick at the moment is an intent-killer) and has read the rules as a fresh outsider: (...) This sounds fair. Otherwise, no significant gain is made by (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.gaming.starship)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
