Where to ask a question about non-KF Collars?

[marcussmythe]

Ive got a question Id like to ask the PTB about a rule.  Not ‘what is this rule’ or ‘how does this rule work’ but ‘why is this rule the way it is, it seems strange to me’

Specifically, the rule I want to ask about is ‘why do dropshuttle bays and non-KF Docking Collars impact the cost of the KF drive?’.  I can see why a KF collar, that extends the KF field around an external dropship, impacts the KF cost.  I just cant wrap my brain around why a purely internal shuttle bay (albeit a large one) or for that matter a simple cargo transfer hatch (a non-KF Collar just lets a dropship attach and move cargo) interacts with the KF Drive.

Cant decide if its an ‘ask the developers’ ‘ask the writers’ or ‘IO Rules Question’, and dont want to be an unnecessary bother.

If a Mod sees fit to simply move this post and rename it, that would be fine, too.

Thanks in advance.

[Daryk]

I'd be inclined for "Ask the Writers", but I've had questions shuttled between Writers, Developers, Rules and Errata forums before, so I could be wrong.

[Paul]

It's a 'Why' question, so that's never a Rules forum question.

Could be ATW given that it's pretty recent (all things considered), though it probably falls back to an overall game balance/aesthetic thing.
Answer's probably along the lines of "Because we need the older tech to be worse than the new so that it makes sense for the new tech to obsolete it."


Cost in BT in general is a horrible mechanism that should be aggressively ignored whenever possible. It truly makes everything worse, nothing better, and we're all worse off for it existing at all.

[Daryk]

Poor implementation doesn't necessarily make the concept bad...

[Weirdo]

I have a question: What book describes a non-KF Collar? I've never even heard of these existing before.

[Frabby]

I have a question: What book describes a non-KF Collar? I've never even heard of these existing before.

Since yonder days of DropShips and JumpShips the aerospace rulebooks have spelled out that every Small Craft, DropShip and JumpShip has at least one (for larger ships, often several) universal docking adapter. This is a "minor item" in the sense of taking up no tonnage, and explains why under BT rules any two spacecraft can dock with each other and exchange personnel, cargo, water/air supplies, power, etc.
It's a simplifying rule that had a generic collar to explain/handwave it in fiction.
For what's commonly called collars, you need to add a KF Boom to the mix.

(At least I think this is what the OP inquired about.)

Unfortunately I'm on my stupid smartphone with no access to my books right now and can't actually look it up, so working from memory here...

[Liam's Ghost]

Actually I would assume he's referring to the docking collars that predate KF-booms described in Interstellar Operations, since they impact the KF drive cost in the same manner as standard docking collars.

[Adrian Gideon]

Poor implementation doesn't necessarily make the concept bad...

True.
But in this case, yes it’s bad.

[SCC]

Actually I would assume he's referring to the docking collars that predate KF-booms described in Interstellar Operations, since they impact the KF drive cost in the same manner as standard docking collars.

This could be part of it, because as you say the rules draw no distinction between them when they probably should, there should be an indicator in brackets or the like, but I think what he's really talking about are DropBays, but upon further explanation he could instead be talking about the fact that pre-K-F Boom JumpShips would likely need/want at least one docking collar (The Dreadnought would be a prime example, [I think, Dreadnought is a bit of a weird case]) to transfer personal and the like.

True.
But in this case, yes it’s bad.

I could probably post a list for you, but that would probably be bad form.

[Daryk]

No argument that FASAnomics is bad, but economics isn't.

[Chinless]

I have a question: What book describes a non-KF Collar? I've never even heard of these existing before.

Interstellar Ops, p122. Its effectively the same as a standard collar but you can't jump with a unit attached to it.

Chris W

[Chinless]

Ive got a question Id like to ask the PTB about a rule.  Not ‘what is this rule’ or ‘how does this rule work’ but ‘why is this rule the way it is, it seems strange to me’

Specifically, the rule I want to ask about is ‘why do dropshuttle bays and non-KF Docking Collars impact the cost of the KF drive?’.  I can see why a KF collar, that extends the KF field around an external dropship, impacts the KF cost.  I just cant wrap my brain around why a purely internal shuttle bay (albeit a large one) or for that matter a simple cargo transfer hatch (a non-KF Collar just lets a dropship attach and move cargo) interacts with the KF Drive.

There's no reason Non-KF Docking Collars should effect the cost of a KF-drive, but Interstellar Ops p187 says they do - that could well be in need of errata.

As for why DropShuttle Bays do, its likely along the lines of game balance. Is it a good mechanism? - arguably not. Is it a simple mechanism? - yes.

Chris W

[marcussmythe]

This could be part of it, because as you say the rules draw no distinction between them when they probably should, there should be an indicator in brackets or the like, but I think what he's really talking about are DropBays, but upon further explanation he could instead be talking about the fact that pre-K-F Boom JumpShips would likely need/want at least one docking collar (The Dreadnought would be a prime example, [I think, Dreadnought is a bit of a weird case]) to transfer personal and the like.
I could probably post a list for you, but that would probably be bad form.

Im referring to both, because both the non-KF Docking Collar (A ring, a hatch, and some stabilizing arms, at most) and the Dropshuttle Bay (A hole in the side of the ship like the ones we already cut for small craft, but bigger) both implicated cost changes to the KF Core for... reasons? 

Im pursing this cause the Warship Arms Race downstairs, one of my players was asking after Dropshuttles, and we discovered that lordy be, Dropshuttle Bays cost as much as KF Collars (more, actually!) for reasons that escaped everyone.

(My suspicion is they put in huge warships, then put docking collars on warships, then had to explain why every warship wasnt Potemkin and why Compact Core Corncobs didnt drive Jumpships out of buisness, so they then made KF Collars insanely, mind-boggling expensive, and THEN realized that you needed to explain why Compact Core ships used collars at ALL, and then...   My other suspicion is the writers were very busy, and as I've opined before, professionals cant afford to spend as much time on this stuff as amateurs - we work for free, professionals have to pay the bills)

[Paul]

No argument that FASAnomics is bad, but economics isn't.

Please provide a list of games that:

A. Are successful
B. Have a point system to balance game forces
C. Show cost in a currency

Hint: you don't need C to score on A.

[Daryk]

Nor do you need B.  Games are games... A has little to do with anything some of us care about here.  You know which game saw the most increase in sales with the current lockdown?  Monopoly...  ::)

[Paul]

Monopoly...  ::)

You... You... Did-- You didn't--- You DID NOT JUST
*connection terminated at host*

[Weirdo]

You have GOT to teach me that trick!

[Daryk]

What?  All I did was cite The Economist...  ;D

[Crimson Dawn]

Nor do you need B.  Games are games... A has little to do with anything some of us care about here.  You know which game saw the most increase in sales with the current lockdown?  Monopoly...  ::)

And with all the new sales who thinks that only about 5% of the people actually bother to read and play by the actual rules.

[guardiandashi]

my 2cents

realistically jumpships (and warships) should have different methods of determining cost re carrying capacity.

IMO dropshuttle bays should NOT vastly increase the cost of the KF core, to the extent that they do.

the big issue is if they are internal bays why do they vastly increase the cost when a cargo bay doesn't?

if you removed that feature (cost) my thought is that you could make reasonable internal bays that just included:
intended maximum mass of the bay (cargo weight allocated)
pressurized or unpressurized repair bay (cost and weight)
docking clamps (optional) allows the craft to remain in the bay while the larger craft maneuvers, without causing damage to either unit.

[Giovanni Blasini]

I'm of the opinion that DropShuttle bays should be cheap to offset the fact they're only allowed to carry DropShuttles, and are objectively worse in every way compared to a docking collar that can carry KF-boom equipped DropShips.

[SCC]

Im referring to both, because both the non-KF Docking Collar (A ring, a hatch, and some stabilizing arms, at most) and the Dropshuttle Bay (A hole in the side of the ship like the ones we already cut for small craft, but bigger) both implicated cost changes to the KF Core for... reasons? 

Im pursing this cause the Warship Arms Race downstairs, one of my players was asking after Dropshuttles, and we discovered that lordy be, Dropshuttle Bays cost as much as KF Collars (more, actually!) for reasons that escaped everyone.

(My suspicion is they put in huge warships, then put docking collars on warships, then had to explain why every warship wasnt Potemkin and why Compact Core Corncobs didnt drive Jumpships out of buisness, so they then made KF Collars insanely, mind-boggling expensive, and THEN realized that you needed to explain why Compact Core ships used collars at ALL, and then...   My other suspicion is the writers were very busy, and as I've opined before, professionals cant afford to spend as much time on this stuff as amateurs - we work for free, professionals have to pay the bills)

OK, you've got to realize that anything Primitive is a Retcon, added more then 20 years after the game started, so there's going to be bugs. Beyond that the reason Docking Collar increase the cost of the K-F Drive is because they are part of it K-F Drive, something needs to channel the K-F Drive energies to anything docked to it, and that something is the Docking Collar, it's just accounted for in the K-F Drive because it only matters if the unit mounts a K-F Drive.

[Frabby]

The terminology is a bit inconsistent. I ran into that problem while trying to tidy up Sarna articles. In particular, there seem to be three different definitions of what constitutes a Docking Collar:

Docking Collar:
(I) Basically anything that will allow two spacecraft to dock with each other and transfer stuff and people. Intrinsically built into every spacecraft, at no specific extra cost during construction.
(II) In a somewhat more restrictive sense, the defining element of a DropShip - a docking collar with KF Boom extension that will permit a JumpShip Hardpoint/DropShip Collar coupling.
(III) Finally, also often (and misleadingly) used synonymous with "Hardpoint".

Hardpoint:
A docking collar with KF Boom on a JumpShip (or WarShip), ready to dock DropShips and carry them along in a jump. Often (misleadingly) called "Docking Collar" or "JumpShip Collar".

DropShuttle Bay:
A primitive precursor to the Hardpoint, widely used on primitive spacecraft back when there was no distinction between JumpShips and WarShips. Amounts to a super-large small craft bay and will carry DropShuttles (of up to 5,000 tons) through a jump. Details unexplained so far but implication is that DropShuttles/DropShuttle Bays, unlike small craft bays, had some sort of KF coupling which is incompatible with modern DropShips.

Small Craft Bay:
Can dock Small Craft of up to 200 tons and will carry them through a jump within the JumpShip's (or DropShip's) jump bubble. No KF boom or other KF coupling required, implicitly because at 200 tons or below, these vessels are small enough to ride shotgun in their mothership's KF field.

Aerospace fighter bays, 'Mech bays, cargo bays and everything else: See Small Craft Bay.

Why it is impossible to carry spacecraft over 200 tons as regular cargo? Has been an inside joke for KF physicists for centuries. You probably can, but you cannot launch vehicles or spacecraft from your cargo bay. To do that, you'd need a DropShuttle Bay or Small Craft Bay.
You apparently cannot carry DropShips as cargo. Fan theory is that their KF-boom Collars require them to have a similar germanium mesh structure in their fuselage as KF drive cores, so unless properly linked to a hardpoint they'll play havoc with your KF field much like nearby drive core.
(Another fan theory was that perhaps the "magically effective" transit drives of spacecraft have some KF field effect.)

[marcussmythe]

I think for purposes of my own gaming, Im going to slap a ‘this rule is does not spark joy’ label on the issue, and restrict the KF Core Cost Implications to KF Docking Collars.

I may just tempt fate and let Dropships be carried as cargo.

[Daryk]

I'll be very curios to see how that goes in your game... Tempting fate like that is VERY interesting...  ^-^

[Hellraiser]

Point of order.

What is this "Cargo Transfer Hatch" that is being spoken of.

I thought there was a rule in TM or SO, somewhere that plain old "Cargo Bay Doors" allowed for any 2 spaceships to link up for Cargo Transfer.

The costs for these is added to the KF core?

I seem to recall that "all" bay doors  (Cargo, Mech, ASF, SCC, etc etc)  had some cost but I didn't recall it being added to the KF calculations.

I always assumed the cost was in the extra mechanics involved for having a moving wall installed in the side of your armor plated hull.

[marcussmythe]

Point of order.

What is this "Cargo Transfer Hatch" that is being spoken of.

I thought there was a rule in TM or SO, somewhere that plain old "Cargo Bay Doors" allowed for any 2 spaceships to link up for Cargo Transfer.

The costs for these is added to the KF core?

I seem to recall that "all" bay doors  (Cargo, Mech, ASF, SCC, etc etc)  had some cost but I didn't recall it being added to the KF calculations.

I always assumed the cost was in the extra mechanics involved for having a moving wall installed in the side of your armor plated hull.

Evidently there is something different from those things and the pre-KF Docking Collars, such that pre-kf collars, intended purely as a docking point, implicate the KF Core?

[Hellraiser]

The only thing I can think of for "Pre-KF collars" in the rules is the ones installed on Space Stations that allow them to dock in the repair bays.

But I'm not familiar with Age of War construction rules.

Are these Pre-KF collars supposed to be the "Super-Shuttle" bays for early "dropships".

I can still see a major cost for those but not sure why it would be related to KF drives.

That said, it might just come down to they were following the rules for current era DC & didn't want to let anything be "more useful" in any way.


On a side note.

Do we have any TRO entry for these "super-shuttle" pre-dropships dropships?

[marcussmythe]

I cant find any dropshuttles, but it notes that many early dropships were derived therefrom, with the necessary hookups for a docking collar added on.

Its also noted in an old QnA about dropshuttles, referenced on Sarna, that you cant carry dropships in a thing like a pressurized repair bay, because once you add the collar hookup to the dropship, it changes the relationship to the KF field.

This -implies-, if we squint at it, that the reason the dropshuttle bays include the collar cost is to allow those dropshuttle bays to also carry dropSHIPS - essentially the dropshuttle bay has the full-up collars required to make dropSHIPS comfy through a jump.

So, -perhaps- when we see prices listed for dropshuttle bays, were seeing the price for the high tech version?

[Liam's Ghost]

Here's how it works:

1) Ships can dock together at cargo bay doors.

2) Dropshuttle bays are specific bays capable of carrying two such craft (Or alternately two stations), each massing up to five thousand tons. The whole assembly is wicked heavy.

2A) Any dropship built before the introduction of the modern docking collar and massing five thousand tons or less can be considered a dropshuttle and can use a dropshuttle bay. It cannot use a modern docking collar unless subsequently upgraded. Upgrading the ship (or simply being a modern ship) also prohibits it from occupying a dropshuttle bay during a jump, due to the kf boom on the dropship interfering with the jump drive.

3) Docking collars are a discrete item and come in primitive pre-boom* and modern varieties. Pre-boom docking collars allow a dropship to dock with the parent vessel, but the collected group cannot jump through hyperspace together**. Modern docking collars can carry modern dropships (but not old dropshuttles) through hyperspace. And preboom collars can be upgraded to modern standards.

4) Modern repair bays incorporate docking collars and can carry dropships through hyperspace, though I believe you're limited to a maximum of two (which likewise reduces your maximum docking collar capacity)

*pre-boom docking collars probably exist because when they wrote early warships into TRO 3075R some chuckleheads started adding docking collars to ships that clearly predated their existence.
**The fact that they're only useful for cargo transfer raises the question of why you'd want pre-boom docking collars at all, since you can dock to a convenient cargo bay door and transfer cargo that way, and the limits on the number of cargo bay doors is a lot more forgiving. I like to house rule that it's faster to transfer cargo through a docking collar. 

[Hellraiser]

I'd say that Pre-Boom collars had use in saving fuel of attached dropships while moving but nearly all warships seem to mount them on the hull & perpendicular to the line of travel & can't be occupied while under acceleration.


So where are these pre-boom collars first mentioned as an item in the rules?

Do we have any examples of their actual use?

If its to deal w/ issues like the Dart from 3057R or 3075R house ships....
  Wouldn't it have made more sense to say the DC versions were later block models & not the originals instead of creating a "new old tech" ?

Just saying,  calling it the Block-1b model since the original couldn't have had DCs seems like the logical way to have done it.

And just to be clear, we are sure these are not costs for the Super-Shuttle Bays?   This is clearly an different item in the rules/costs & not just a naming issue?

[SCC]

Pre-Boom Collars because it's hard to imagine a BT ship without them, so Docking Collars were not on the restricted items list for Primitive stuff when first added, there also kind-of useful in the small spaceship, hard sci-fi setting that BT is.

And Liam's Ghost you missed a point: Any two spaceships mounting Docking Collars can dock on them, so docking DS to DS, JS to JS, WS to WS, JS to WS are all possible, along with docking any of the before mentioned to space stations.

[Liam's Ghost]

So where are these pre-boom collars first mentioned as an item in the rules?

Interstellar operations page 119

Do we have any examples of their actual use?

By default any ship operating before 2458 (when the prototype KF boom is introduced) with docking collars is using pre-boom versions.

If its to deal w/ issues like the Dart from 3057R or 3075R house ships....
  Wouldn't it have made more sense to say the DC versions were later block models & not the originals instead of creating a "new old tech" ?

Broadly speaking, maybe, but there may have been a fear that players would expect to see these earlier ships. And with Aerospace being a niche end of the market, they might have decided adding an extra couple paragraphs to Interstellar Operations was better than churning out several new designs.

But that's just a guess on my part, and... umm... even if it's right they kinda failed, because interstellar operations also moves the intro-date for standard warship armor and its variants so far forward that many pre-existing ships would have to have earlier variants with less sophisticated armor to comply with it (even primitive armor is still classified as experimental until 2300, even though it's been on literally all of the tens of thousands of space craft created during the prior hundred years. You'd think they'd have gotten the kinks worked out by then).

And just to be clear, we are sure these are not costs for the Super-Shuttle Bays?   This is clearly an different item in the rules/costs & not just a naming issue?

Yes, dropshuttle bays are a separate item on the same page. Coincidentally they have much the same affect on cost.

[Liam's Ghost]

And Liam's Ghost you missed a point: Any two spaceships mounting Docking Collars can dock on them, so docking DS to DS, JS to JS, WS to WS, JS to WS are all possible, along with docking any of the before mentioned to space stations.

You can already do that by docking to cargo bay doors. Literally any ship of any type to any other ship of any other type.

[Alexander Knight]

Fuel and life support transfers, maybe?  Instead of having to schlep it over in canisters from one cargo hold to another.

[Liam's Ghost]

Fuel and life support transfers, maybe?  Instead of having to schlep it over in canisters from one cargo hold to another.

Possibly? The rules don't give a lot of guidance on large craft refueling, it just says see the section that covers fighter refueling, which would let them transfer the fuel without even docking.

[SCC]

How about all those military DS that somehow lack cargo bays? Also I doubt that crew can be transferred through a cargo bay.

[Liam's Ghost]

How about all those military DS that somehow lack cargo bays? Also I doubt that crew can be transferred through a cargo bay.

Crew is actually the easiest thing to transfer through a cargo bay (since they can do the moving themselves). And I don't know of any dropship that lacks a cargo bay. I found one that lacks a cargo bay door in its stat block (the Excalibur). So that one ship would have to use a docking collar. 

[SCC]

Crew is actually the easiest thing to transfer through a cargo bay (since they can do the moving themselves). And I don't know of any dropship that lacks a cargo bay. I found one that lacks a cargo bay door in its stat block (the Excalibur). So that one ship would have to use a docking collar. 

Ah, I see, by 'lacks a cargo bay' I was thinking of things like the Leopard, which has no cargo capacity beyond 'Mechs and ASF.

[sillybrit]

Those with beemer status may be able to search for a discussion that I vaguely recall way back about this subject in the beemer section of the forum.

From what I remember, the reason DropShuttle bays impact KF costs (and take up collar slots) was to make them consistent with repair bays. Repair bays had the KF/collar cost added because repair bays add more capacity than they require in mass, which could have allowed an exploit to carry huge numbers of DropShips cheaply unless the loophole was closed. Repair bays came out the way they did to accommodate existing designs without the need for a retcon. It was something like that.

I'd argue differently, that repair bays force the controlled (i.e. safe) volume of a KF field to be extended to accommodate the increased bulk of the yardship compared to a regular WarShip/JumpShip, and that's why repair bays increase KF drive cost/complexity. DropShuttle bays on the other hand, don't increase a ship's bulk and thus shouldn't need impact KF costs (I'd still have it cost collar slots as a way to balance how many bays a ship can have), plus they already have enough limitations compared to KF collars to not need the cost increase as well. IMO.

[Weirdo]

Ah, I see, by 'lacks a cargo bay' I was thinking of things like the Leopard, which has no cargo capacity beyond 'Mechs and ASF.

No. 3057r. The Leopard has a cargo bay with 34 tons capacity, 72 tons for the 3050s upgrade.

[Hellraiser]

Does it have to be a "Cargo Bay" door?

The Excalibur clearly has doors where all those tanks, infantry, & mechs unload.

I think they cost the same & are treated the same regardless of what type of "bay" they are attached to.

[Weirdo]

All bay doors may be used for docking. All of them.

[Hellraiser]

Thank you, that is what I thought.

All bay doors are equipped with "air locks" w/ "coupling clamps" essentially.