Author Topic: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race  (Read 190167 times)

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #30 on: 05 June 2018, 13:38:07 »
I was thinking more ‘very bad ideas’ as in my prior ‘rules say that 700 PPCs are 700 capital damage I want that for my broadside’ point, which you clarified as ‘sure the strict rules say that but its silly and doesnt work that way’.  Obviously if I build a 5/8 force of Commerce Raider light cruisers and the opponent throws his whole 2/3 Battleship Wall of Battle at my capital, Im going to have a Very Bad Day.

Dont stop me from being Jackie Fisher.  He was often wrong, but those were reasonable wrong for the information he had. Just give me a heads up if its clear my mental picture of how things work is utterly off base, like ‘Hey, youve got 1000 fighters on this thing.  Your House cant possibly build enough fighters to fill those’

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #31 on: 05 June 2018, 13:46:14 »
I was thinking more ‘very bad ideas’ as in my prior ‘rules say that 700 PPCs are 700 capital damage I want that for my broadside’ point, which you clarified as ‘sure the strict rules say that but its silly and doesnt work that way’.  Obviously if I build a 5/8 force of Commerce Raider light cruisers and the opponent throws his whole 2/3 Battleship Wall of Battle at my capital, Im going to have a Very Bad Day.

Dont stop me from being Jackie Fisher.  He was often wrong, but those were reasonable wrong for the information he had. Just give me a heads up if its clear my mental picture of how things work is utterly off base, like ‘Hey, youve got 1000 fighters on this thing.  Your House cant possibly build enough fighters to fill those’

Yeah, we're very much on the same page here.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #32 on: 05 June 2018, 14:29:38 »
Also, I see a lot of people discussing this idea - is anyone interested in joining?

In case I was unclear - I look forward to processing my first turn.  When can I expect it and do you need my email?

 ;)

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #33 on: 05 June 2018, 14:41:28 »
In case I was unclear - I look forward to processing my first turn.  When can I expect it and do you need my email?

 ;)

I figured as much from "I'm totally down" ;)

I'd like to get 5 players, if we can. If we're lacking that in a reasonable period of time(let's say a week from now?), I'll proceed with fewer and people can jump in down the line. Feel free to work on your planning for the first turn, or to make suggestions for how you'd like to see this run.

I don't expect email will be needed - I was figuring forum posts and PM's would be sufficient. Were you thinking of a particular need for email? I've run face-to-face RPGs before, but never via forum, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something.
« Last Edit: 05 June 2018, 14:43:06 by Alsadius »

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #34 on: 05 June 2018, 14:48:25 »

I am getting ideas, however I am bit short on time lately, but I would like to try.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #35 on: 05 June 2018, 15:04:37 »
I am getting ideas, however I am bit short on time lately, but I would like to try.

Great, we're up to two.

Remember also that you won't need to produce three new ships every round or anything. Sarna shows 39 Terran Hegemony designs, and that covered 480 years(and includes some re-makes, like the three Lolas, as well as stuff like the Bug-Eye that I doubt anyone here will bother making). Even if a round is a decade, you'll probably wind up making no new submissions in many of your rounds. Also, if we get more than five interested parties, I'm cool with people forming teams.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #36 on: 05 June 2018, 16:10:17 »
I figured as much from "I'm totally down" ;)

I'd like to get 5 players, if we can. If we're lacking that in a reasonable period of time(let's say a week from now?), I'll proceed with fewer and people can jump in down the line. Feel free to work on your planning for the first turn, or to make suggestions for how you'd like to see this run.

I don't expect email will be needed - I was figuring forum posts and PM's would be sufficient. Were you thinking of a particular need for email? I've run face-to-face RPGs before, but never via forum, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something.

Forum posts and PMs would probably be enough.
Maybe something like:

Turn 1, 2350-2360
The Terran Hegemony has been building Warships - heavily armed Jumpships - using compact core technology.  This technology has reached the hands of our designers, and we must decide how to secure the future of the $StarNation in this dangerous era.

Your total budget for Naval Construction is $300 Billion CBills

CAPITAL PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new capital vessel.  Warship prices vary based on size and dropship carriage, and larger warships tend to be cheaper relative to their combat power than smaller vessels.  A Typical 500,000 Ton Warship likely costs around ~10 Billion C-Bills.

Capital Production Assets:
Yard Space:  4 Million Tons Total Construction
Maximum Slipway Size:  400,000 Tons


DROPSHIP PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new combat dropship.  Transport and Cargo Dropships are outside the scope of this simulation.  If you do not choose to design combat dropships, your level of investment will be taken into account by the GM to indicate the priority your navy places on combat dropship production and operation.  Combat Dropships are very expensive relative to their mass and tend to suffer heavier casualties in combat, but may be produced very quickly compared to warships.  A 10,000 Ton Combat Dropship costs ~2.5 B C-Bills

Dropship Production Assets:
Yard Space:  Unlimited
Maximum Dropship Size:  Any


FIGHTER PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new aerospace fighter.  If you do not choose to design fighters your level of investment will be taken into account by the GM to indicate the priority your navy places on fighter production and operation.  Aerospace fighters are relatively inexpensive and may be produced in vast quantities, but require carriers to operate and suffer from higher operational costs, operational losses, and fuel restrictions that make make them difficult to employ.  A typical 50 Ton Fighter costs ~ 2.5 Million CBills

INVESTMENT:
Any C-Bills left unspent may be allocated to other uses you believe beneficial to the future of your star nation.  The GM will adjudicate what impact this has, if any.

OPERATIONS AND DOCTRINE:
Please indicate here what sort of naval operations you want your navy to prioritize.  Are they clearing the way for invasion fleets?  Are they engaged in commerce raiding? Are they defending the borders?
How aggressively will your fleet operate?  Will it seek out engagement?  Will it accept only on the most favourable of terms?  Is it strictly limited to a suvival/fleet in being doctrine, where you are willing to risk the loss of all but the most important of worlds to retain the strength of your fleet?
What is your policy towards Nuclear Weapons?  Nuclear munitions are a major advantage, but may anger other powers, and the Terran Hegemony is still the largest fish in space...

((Etc - just an initial thought))

((Also, if we get more than 5 interest parties, Im all for playing one of the major periphery powers.  Long live the RWR!))

((Also, Also - we will need to all be using the same design software, because I believe 0 of us are interested in building warships by hand, but we need to be getting the same answers.  Whatever everyone chooses is fine, although I haven't budgeted for Heavy Metal this quarter.))
« Last Edit: 05 June 2018, 16:48:00 by marcussmythe »

Tyler Jorgensson

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2853
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #37 on: 05 June 2018, 18:43:22 »
I have no were enough time so count me out.... however I would LOVE to read the results and watch. If it's not going to be in this thread please link it.


Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 445
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #38 on: 05 June 2018, 21:39:13 »
Haven't had much experience with 'Ship buildin but I'll have a go, even have a few ships built that could exist alongside the TAS Dreadnought to start me off

My main issue is going to be the fluff side of things, see how it goes

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #39 on: 06 June 2018, 07:13:46 »
Haven't had much experience with 'Ship buildin but I'll have a go, even have a few ships built that could exist alongside the TAS Dreadnought to start me off

My main issue is going to be the fluff side of things, see how it goes

And then there were three.

I have no were enough time so count me out.... however I would LOVE to read the results and watch. If it's not going to be in this thread please link it.

It'll be in this thread.

(snip)

Not a bad starting point - I'll fiddle with it a bit, but you've given me some things to think about.

As for construction tools, I think the only one worth a damn that's up to date is Cryhavoc's Google Sheet. HM Aero is outdated, and MML's WarShip construction won't go public until after we're underway.

As for things you can buy, I've got the following list for right now. Thoughts?

* WarShips/Space Stations (as calculated cost, though lead ship of a new class costs double, and lead ship of a new variant costs +50%. Round all costs to the nearest million C-bills)
* JumpShips (500M, not differentiated)
* DropShips (small = 300M, medium = 500M, large = 1,000M. Cargo/ground unit transports are not differentiated beyond that, carriers store 12/36/108 fighters, PWS rules TBD)
* Small Craft (combat = 20M, shuttle = 10M)
* Fighters (light = 2M, medium = 4M, heavy = 6M, or once XL engines come online you can buy advanced versions for 3x the cost)
* Yard space (rules TBD)
* Training (rules TBD)
* Maintenance (rules TBD)
* Research (one tech will be released every round, each million spent is a ballot. Winner can use the tech for a round before everyone else gets access)

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #40 on: 06 June 2018, 07:27:20 »
I'd like to point out to anyone who needs it that my warship construction spreadsheet calculated C-bill costs as well, and handles primitive jumpship design too.

However my dropship sheet doesn't do c-bills. Use them each however you like. Links in my signature.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #41 on: 06 June 2018, 07:27:36 »
Are we intentionally lowering the cost of droppers?  I can live with that (because their costs are -crazy-, due to the modifier) but its a significant change.
« Last Edit: 06 June 2018, 07:32:04 by marcussmythe »

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #42 on: 06 June 2018, 07:47:18 »
I'd like to point out to anyone who needs it that my warship construction spreadsheet calculated C-bill costs as well, and handles primitive jumpship design too.

However my dropship sheet doesn't do c-bills. Use them each however you like. Links in my signature.

Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

And I was planning to abstract away DropShip design, so I doubt I'll ask players to use that construction tool.

Are we intentionally lowering the cost of droppers?  I can live with that (because their costs are -crazy-, due to the modifier) but its a significant change.

The DropShips themselves aren't all that expensive. I'll double-check those numbers, but I think that was what I wrote down when going through my books last night. (I'm at the office now, so I can't confirm). The collars to attach them, OTOH, can easily run a couple bil if they're on a WarShip, especially one with a L-F battery. My impression was always that the DS itself was the cheaper part of the system.

Starfox1701

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 521
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #43 on: 06 June 2018, 07:54:24 »
Also consider that drop ships and jumpships as we know them today haven't been invited yet which severely limits DS size since its still got to be carried internally

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #44 on: 06 June 2018, 08:03:51 »
Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

And I was planning to abstract away DropShip design, so I doubt I'll ask players to use that construction tool.

The DropShips themselves aren't all that expensive. I'll double-check those numbers, but I think that was what I wrote down when going through my books last night. (I'm at the office now, so I can't confirm). The collars to attach them, OTOH, can easily run a couple bil if they're on a WarShip, especially one with a L-F battery. My impression was always that the DS itself was the cheaper part of the system.

I was getting my numbers from a spreadsheet I didnt write.  Ill hand math a quick dropper by the current rules and see what I get.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #45 on: 06 June 2018, 08:04:35 »
Also consider that drop ships and jumpships as we know them today haven't been invited yet which severely limits DS size since its still got to be carried internally

I've seen mixed information on that - there's some suggestions that DS don't exist until 2470, but then I see designs like the Saturn from the 2200s. The Jumbo from the early 2400s was almost certainly too big to carry internally. Where can I get a definite answer here? I feel like I'm looking in the wrong place(s).
« Last Edit: 06 June 2018, 10:07:06 by Alsadius »

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #46 on: 06 June 2018, 08:57:44 »
Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

Yes it does. It does Warships, Jumpships, Stations, and Primitive Jumpships.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #47 on: 06 June 2018, 10:13:54 »
I'm using the spreadsheet done by Amaris Fan Club - I encountered it before yours, and its working for me.
Mostly its that I can use it at work - my work hates google docs. :)

http://www.mediafire.com/view/lgg3098a6a73ur7/Warship%20Design%20Spreadsheet%20-%20Dec%202013.xlsx


Its discussed in this thread:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,35566.new.html#new

Unfortunately, Amaris Fan Club hasnt posted in a year, and that thread is from 2013, so I cant say where we are in terms of currency - but shes worked well for me, and I like the extra fluffy fiddly bits. :)


Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #48 on: 06 June 2018, 10:50:36 »
I've seen mixed information on that - there's some suggestions that DS don't exist until 2470, but then I see designs like the Saturn from the 2200s. The Jumbo from the early 2400s was almost certainly too big to carry internally. Where can I get a definite answer here? I feel like I'm looking in the wrong place(s).
Before 2470 you have dropshuttles, but they could either be mobile (fit in DS bays) or exceed 5000 tons and be stuck in system.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #49 on: 06 June 2018, 10:57:55 »
* Small Craft (combat = 20M, shuttle = 10M)
The combat option is a bit expensive, why not both 10M or calculated. See examples:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58804.0
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=30150.0
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #50 on: 06 June 2018, 11:26:29 »
Suggested rules for shipyard space:

Shipyards have 10 levels. Each yard can produce an average of two ships a turn(i.e., one every 5 years), with maximum size equal to level*250,000 tons. Shipyards can be created at level 1 or upgraded by one level per turn, at a cost of 10 billion times the new level. If the system where the shipyard is located already has a yard of equal or larger size, this cost is halved. There is no limit to the number of yards that can be located in a single system, though be aware that over-concentration leaves you more vulnerable to attack. To simplify bookkeeping, repairing ships will not generally consume yard space, and there is no production speed bonus for producing smaller ships in a bigger yard.

Station/JS/DS/small craft/fighter space is limited only by funds, to keep bookkeeping simple.

Suggested rules for maintenance and training:

A typical ship or station design costs 1% of its original cost per year in maintenance, crew training, and upkeep. This is doubled if it has been out of production for at least 20 years, due to scarcity of parts. (To prevent excessive munchkining, re-starting a stopped line is treated as a new variant of the ship, with the +50% cost associated with that). A ship can be put into mothballs to reduce its maintenance cost by 80%, but re-activating it will cost the equivalent of a decade's standard maintenance.

Players can under-fund or over-fund maintenance on their ships if desired, which will have some effects on their performance in combat. No firm rules here, but tl;dr occasional maintenance holidays have fairly small impacts, especially if you catch up by over-funding later, but persistent under-funding will have serious effects. Over-funding won't have a huge effect, but a player who wants to focus on high-quality units may gain some benefit from doing so.

JS/DS/small craft/fighter maintenance is ignored. However, regular attrition of these units is to be expected, so replacement costs will be relevant.

Suggested rules for randomization:

Each turn, I'll make a roll on a random event table for each faction. Each new ship design will get a roll on a random quirk table. Both of these tables will be of my devising. Don't expect huge effects, but a ship might be a hangar queen(2x maintenance costs), or easy to modify(no cost to creating new variants), and a player might get a brilliant admiral(+1 to command skill rolls) or a terrible recession (-10% to budget next turn).

Suggested rules for finance:

Players get income based on how large and successful their empire is. Successful conquests will increase your budget, and losing territory(either permanently, or having it temporarily devastated in attacks) will reduce it. I'll mostly play this one by ear.

Surpluses can be saved, but no interest will accrue. Deficits can be run, but each million C-bills of overspending reduces your income for the next round by two million. No deficit can be run that would reduce the next turn's income below zero.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #51 on: 06 June 2018, 11:26:51 »
Before 2470 you have dropshuttles, but they could either be mobile (fit in DS bays) or exceed 5000 tons and be stuck in system.

Ah, okay. Where are the rules for DS bays?

The combat option is a bit expensive, why not both 10M or calculated. See examples:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58804.0
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=30150.0

I was thinking of units that were quite a bit more capable than that in combat. I confess, I haven't played with SC much, so maybe I'm overvaluing them.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #52 on: 06 June 2018, 12:03:42 »
Ah, okay. Where are the rules for DS bays?
See IO page 119, 126-127


Quote
I was thinking of units that were quite a bit more capable than that in combat. I confess, I haven't played with SC much, so maybe I'm overvaluing them.
The Pleiades examples is actually relatively decent, the rare combat SCs are about as effective as medium ASFs. SC only become dangerous with advanced technology such as DHS and Gauss Rifles.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #53 on: 06 June 2018, 12:25:54 »
Consider starting with JS/DS/ASFs in use.  Cuts down on the total new unit types people have to remember.

Rules sound good, but you know how much time you have.  Unless it adds something you find particularly important,, recommend that simpler is usually better.

Then again, Ive already designed my fleet standard ASF, and dont know what nation i have.  So who knows?


Player Count:
Looks like me, Maingunnery, and Smegish so far.  Anyone else chimed in?  How do we want to pass out great houses?  Do we know what the situation of the various houses was in 2550?

Im looking at the maps on Sarna, for 2570, which should be close...

By comparison to the modern era:
1.)  Everyone loses space to the Hegemony.  Unsuprising.
2.)  DC has about the same border with the FedSuns, but has lost a lot of space to the LC compared to 3025
3.)  Fedsuns control somewhat less Capellan Space than they do in 3025
4.)  Cap Con picks up a lot of FWL Space
5.)  FWL looses space to the CapCon, and the Commonwealth, compared to 3025.
6.)  Strong LC in this era - it controls sections of FWL space and large sections of DC space, comapred to 3025.

Looks like the LC is the winner in this era.  Maybe 10% larger than the Fed Suns.
FS is a bit reduced, compared to 3025., but a solid #2
DC is quite weak compared to 3025.. about 2/3 the size of the FS or LC.
Cap Con and FWL are of similar size - but even between them, no larger than the FS or LC.
The whole of the FWL/DC/CC Axis (if it exists!) is similar in size to the FS/LC, if not a bit smaller.

Hmm.  Hopefully the great powers are somewhat more equal 'under the hood'.
« Last Edit: 06 June 2018, 13:56:15 by marcussmythe »

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #54 on: 06 June 2018, 13:54:49 »
See IO page 119, 126-127

The Pleiades examples is actually relatively decent, the rare combat SCs are about as effective as medium ASFs. SC only become dangerous with advanced technology such as DHS and Gauss Rifles.

I'm going to need to buy IO and CO for this, aren't I?

And if that's the case, then we can just drop the "combat SC" entry. Call them all 10 mil per, don't worry about dividing them up.

Consider starting with JS/DS/ASFs in use.  Cuts down on the total new unit types people have to remember.

Rules sound good, but you know how much time you have.  Unless it adds something you find particularly important,, recommend that simpler is usually better.

Then again, Ive already designed my fleet standard ASF, and dont know what nation i have.  So who knows?


Player Count:
Looks like me, Maingunnery, and Smegish so far.  Anyone else chimed in?  How do we want to pass out great houses?  Do we know what the situation of the various houses was in 2550?

Yeah, I'm trying to strip out a lot of the record-keeping. I know I have to run this thing, so I'm trying not to multiply needlessly. It'll be complex enough as-is. And that's the same player count I have, though a RL buddy of mine might be interested as well. Passing out houses I figured we'd do by a preference list, and randomization insofar as they differ. (I thought of giving priority to people who join first, but that might push latecomers away, and it prevents things like your offer to play the RWR if we have a lot of people.) As for the situations of the houses, I'll need to do some research. Note that some of the secondary houses had not yet been folded in by this point - the RWR, the United Hindu Collective, etc. - but I doubt players will want to play factions with an expiry date.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #55 on: 06 June 2018, 14:57:58 »
I'm using the spreadsheet done by Amaris Fan Club - I encountered it before yours, and its working for me.
Mostly its that I can use it at work - my work hates google docs. :)

Hey as long as you have something that works, that's what matters. I only made mine because I couldn't find one that worked for me. I actually chose google docs for mine for similar reasons.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #56 on: 06 June 2018, 15:48:54 »
I'm going to need to buy IO and CO for this, aren't I?

 - but I doubt players will want to play factions with an expiry date.

1.)  RE:  IO and CO... "I NEED FIVE VOLUNTEERS!"  "... what for, Drill Seargeant?"  "I NEED FOUR VOLUNTEERS...."

2.)  Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)

Tyler Jorgensson

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2853
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #57 on: 06 June 2018, 16:31:59 »
Finmark Republic is a go!
2.)  Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #58 on: 06 June 2018, 19:57:06 »
Looking for year in service dates for the various Warship Armors - Cannot locate in Tech Manual or Strat Ops.  Should I be looking elsewhere?

Edit:

Per Sarna:
Ferro-Carbide:  Aegis, 2372
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide:  Black Lion, 2691

Will update as I find earlier dates.
« Last Edit: 06 June 2018, 20:41:33 by marcussmythe »

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #59 on: 06 June 2018, 20:46:56 »
Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)

I like the way you think, but players are effectively Cabinet-level, not national leaders. Things like the Amaris coup(and the SLDF response) are out of player control.

Looking for year in service dates for the various Warship Armors - Cannot locate in Tech Manual or Strat Ops.  Should I be looking elsewhere?

Edit:

Per Sarna:
Ferro-Carbide:  Aegis, 2372
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide:  Black Lion, 2691

Will update as I find earlier dates.

I was working on the tech list - SO page 158 shows improved ferro-aluminum 2350, ferro-carbide 2370, and lamellor ferro-carbide 2615. Weirdly, regular ferro-aluminum is 2571, 200+ years after the improved version, so I may juggle those around a bit. (I'm using historical tech dates as inspiration, not a hard-and-fast list - there's too many short bursts of growth and long droughts for a game like this. Also I want to keep the exact order of tech development a secret to avoid metagaming.)

Edit: Here's the list of canonical invention dates I've pulled from my sourcebooks for any even-somewhat-relevant technologies I could find. If you think I'm missing something, let me know.
Tech   Canon Introduction
Improved Ferro-Aluminum   2350
Vehicular Drop Chute   2351
NPPC   2356
SRM   2370
Ferro-Carbide   2370
Castle Brian   2391
Small Laser   2400
LRM   2400
Medium Laser   2400
Large Laser   2430
Mechs   2443
AC/10   2460
PPC   2460
Mech Cubicle   2470
Spheroid DropShip   2470
CASE   2476
Aerodyne DropShip   2480
Endo Steel   2487
AC/20   2500
L-F Battery   2529
Double HS   2567
Ferro-Aluminum   2571
Ferro Fibre   2571
Active Probe   2576
XL Engine   2579
Narc   2587
Gauss Rifle   2590
LB-10X   2595
ECM   2597
Artemis IV   2598
TAG   2600
Pulse Lasers   2609
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide   2615
AMS   2617
ER Large Laser   2620
HyperPulse Generators   2629
UAC/5   2640
Streak SRM-2   2647
Mobile HPG   2655
LAMs   2688
Caspar Drones   2690
Light Power Armor   2710
Mass Driver   2715
ER PPC   2760
Bearings-Only Launches   (Not specified - assumed to be fairly early)
Bracket Fire   (Not specified - assumed to be late Star League)
« Last Edit: 06 June 2018, 20:53:22 by Alsadius »