Forums of the Megaverse®

I see some good 3D ship designs around here, and a thread mentioning a re-vamp of AU:GG tables... so am I to understand there are no existing tables for creating your own Phase World/Rifts spacecraft?

I haven't seen any myself, but then again I don't have any of the latest releases.

No official tables as far as I know.

Some snippets are in the DMB's, but nothing
overall. We are statting ships "to fit in the line"
with maybe a slight advantage here or there
(but nothing overall... After all, it is technical
stagnation, what makes possible for the Hunter
to still be one of the most respected
frigates/destroyers)

Adios
KLM

There is a nice ship builder in Rifter 34, if you can find it. But otherwise just categorize the ships you have in the books and try to keep within the limits set by cannon. Phase World Starships will undoubtedly have some directions for ship creation.

I know what you mean Gadrin! I'm one of thos4e ones who uses rules supplements other people have. And I personally would rather look at a "Janes Ships" when I'm designing a ship then use the AU:GG.

Yepp...

A "classic" example of design flaws is the lack
of point defense (or inadequate point defense)
on capital ships.

Thought the "real" HMS Dreadnought also suffered
from this flaw, the subsequent designs were rather
quickly corrected.
----------

Another flaw - and this is for the whole Palladium
Megaverse that the bigger the stuff gets, the less
bang for the buck. I mean look at the Scorpion
fighter and the Silverhawk PA - almost the same
armor protection, thought the Scorpion weight
around ten times the PA (and is more compact,
does not have joints).

Same for damage.

Adios
KLM

It is not what I was thinking of.

Compare for example a .50 BMG heavy machine gun
with a 120mm smoothbore MBT canon and then compare
the SAMAS railgun with the guns of the Spider Skull Walker.

Adios
KLM

Greyaxe wrote:There is a nice ship builder in Rifter 34, if you can find it. But otherwise just categorize the ships you have in the books and try to keep within the limits set by cannon. Phase World Starships will undoubtedly have some directions for ship creation.

Phase World Starships? Is this a new sourcebook in the works?

I would hope so -- to me the single biggest downside to the whole Phase World setting is a lack of small freighter-sized ships suitable for a group of PCs. That's something that AU (and also the Star Wars RPG) has over it.

Yes a new Phase World Book is in the works and has been submitted. Kevin announced it some months ago as a project due out 2007.

I'm looking forward to seeing Braden's Phase World book reach our hands.

I can't wait to see this book as well.

Unfortunately, my needs are a little more immediate... so I've started a spreadsheet analyzing different existing PW ship stats, looking for trends/tendencies so I can adapt the AU:GG tables. It's a stopgap measure, to be sure, but hey I need the Excel practice.

And before you make the inevitable comment, yes I actually AM seeing some trends here. Not terribly strong trends, but trends none the less.

Okay, I've gotten things partially completed with my analysis. What I'm basically looking for here is MDC -- how it relates to ship length and how tough key components are in relation to the Main Body.

FIGHTERS:
Scorpion-Class Light Fighter
FB-49 Fire Eater
Flying Fang Interceptor
SF-101A Black Eagle
Shadow Bolt Strike Ship
BIF-67 Katana
Broadsword Delta-Wing
Star Ghost-Class FIghter
Proctor-Class Interceptor
- Average 12.85 MDC per foot of length...
- Shields (when they have them) average 192.41% of Main Body MDC...
- Cockpits/Pilot's Compartments/Escape Pods average 26.56% of Main Body MDC...
- Primary Weapons (when not built into the Main Body) average 18.77% of Main Body MDC. However, Secondary Weapons (usually missile launchers) average 23.24% of Main Body MDC...
- Wings (when they have them) average 29.51% of Main Body MDC...

FRIGATES:
Arcane Mark II Patrol Ship
Hunter-Class Destroyer
Berserker Class Warship
Scimitar-Class Patrol Ship
- Average 17.5 MDC per foot of length...
- Shields average 127.62% of Main Body MDC...
- The Bridge section averages 34.88% of Main Body MDC...
- Primary Weapons average 17.13% of Main Body MDC. Secondary Weapons average 15.09% of Main Body MDC...

CRUISERS:
Warshield-Class Cruiser
Smasher-Class Cruiser
Dwarven Iron Ship
- Average 47.47 MDC per foot of length...
- Shields average 66.67% of Main Body MDC...
- The Bridge section averages 31.48% of Main Body MDC...
- Primary Weapons average 4.78% of Main Body MDC. Secondary Weapons average 2.89% of Main Body MDC...
- Hangar Bays average 27.22% of Main Body MDC...

CAPITAL SHIPS:
Protector-Class Battleship
Packmaster-Class Carriership
Doombringer Dreadnought
- Average only 33.31 MDC per foot of length...
- Shields average only 30.86% of Main Body MDC...
- The Bridge section averages 23.77% of Main Body MDC...
- Primary Weapons average 1.74% of Main Body MDC. Secondary Weapons average 0.68% of Main Body MDC...
- Hangar Bays average 44.52% of Main Body MDC...
- Main Engines (when listed) average 40.57% of Main Body MDC...

Actually, the only hard part was going through my books and entering in the MDC/lengths (which I did in a little under an hour). The formulas in Excel calculated everything else.

But with these figures in hand, one could more easily 'stat out' ships with little more information than the length of the ship.

Well, that's kinda the point though... consume a little bit of time on the front end rather than the back end (when you're trying to stat a ship).

I also figured out Shuttles as well, but since there were only two of them I'm not overly sure of my data there. I can share it as well though if desired.

I strongly suggest to use mass/weight instead of lenght.

Adios
KLM

KLM wrote:I strongly suggest to use mass/weight instead of lenght.

Adios
KLM

I can add that parameter... and probably without a whole lot of effort either. I don't know yet whether or not it should be entirely based on mass, but it's definitely worth looking at.

gadrin wrote:

Uncle Servo wrote:Actually, the only hard part was going through my books and entering in the MDC/lengths (which I did in a little under an hour). The formulas in Excel calculated everything else.

But with these figures in hand, one could more easily 'stat out' ships with little more information than the length of the ship.

Nice.

Thank you. But I'm not done yet.

gadrin wrote:

Primary Weapons average 1.74% of Main Body MDC. Secondary Weapons average 0.68% of Main Body MDC..

what does that mean ?

It means that if you were to take a ship with the average Main Body MDC for that group -- in this case, 226,666.67 MDC -- its average Primary Weapon would have 4,066.67 MDC and the average Secondary Weapon would have 1,333.33 MDC.

gadrin wrote:also any correlation between sizes and speeds (both slower and FTL) ?

Not yet...

gadrin wrote:edit: I almost forgot: Servo what sort of exchange rate do you place between HU and Phase World (or if using Rifts is easier...) ?

Not sure yet. I'm almost tempted to use a 1:1 ratio, but don't quote me on that just yet.

Darkmax wrote:i always thought volume is a better rating. Since you are buying space inside a container. Mass and weight aren't really significant in space, until the ship reached a certain size.

Normally I'd tend to agree with you, but in this instance I'm a little skittish at trying to use volume here. Using length x width x height values would give you a cube -- but given the shape of some of these ships it wouldn't accurately reflect the true volume. I'm sure there's a way you could calculate volume given the shapes, but I'm not mathematically savvy enough to wrap my head around it.

Darkmax wrote:in an atmosphere it is. I do not doubt you in that... but in space.... not always.

Actually, most designs (even some of the cruisers and up)
are aerospace craft.

That aside, weight/mass/inertia, while working a
bit differently, does have effect in microgravitiy.

Weight/thrust ratio for example.

Of course there is a REALLY big can of worms,
when calculating with weight, volume, area...
As well as armor, compartments (size, number
and "independence"), shield are, warp bubble volume...

Add the usual Palladium "feature" (it is a hell
spawned BUG!!! ) of two 10 ton fighters beating
the youknowwhat out of a 10000 ton frigate...

But unless we are about to start a "Do it yourself
Academy of Starship Engineering" (what academy...
University ) we can settle down to mass.

You know, that balance between smooth gameplay
and precise simulation

Adios
KLM

Uncle Servo wrote: I've started a spreadsheet analyzing different existing PW ship stats, looking for trends/tendencies...

Aha! Ha ha ha ha! Muahaa!

Yeah. I did that for three days, until I thought I would go insane (Really. Ask my wife about that weekend). And you know what I found out? CJ Carella pulled numbers out of his ass.

There is no rhyme or reason to some of the Phase World starships. There was, as far as I can tell, absolutely no system or method used in their creation at all. The worst offenders are the CAF and TGE trans-atmo combat shuttles which can't even carry/lift their own listed cargos.

See the Dimension Book Errata thread for more conclusions (page 2).

Good luck, Servo. Try to keep your wits about you.

Uncle Servo wrote:Okay, I've gotten things partially completed ...

SERVO'S ANALYSIS



Well, you did better than I did.

It's a nice analysis! Very good indeed!

Hi there!

Braden, GMPhD wrote:Yeah. I did that for three days, until I thought I would go insane (Really. Ask my wife about that weekend). And you know what I found out? CJ Carella pulled numbers out of his ass.

Just to add my two cents to the picture, as far as I know,
Kevin (Mr. Siembieda, if you like) have the tendency to
modify stats before the material sent to print.

So, it might not be just CJC's fault.

But yeah, we have basically two choices

1, Design by gut feeling and try to balance to existing canon

2, Rewamp the whole system - in my case a half-baked
system gave like 30.000 MDC for your olde' UAR-1 Enforcer
(if you just pepper it with infantry guns - but concentrate you fire
or plainly hit it with an anti-armor weapon, and it goes down
from like 3000 MDC)

Adios
KLM

duck-foot wrote:in space weight does not matter, however it could complicate things in orbit/atmosphere re-entry

Wrong again.

Let us suppose, that weight does not matter - therefore
the same engine which propells your fighter (measured 5 tons)
at M18 will propell a Protector (a few million tons) at
the same speed and manouverability?
But it isn't, right?

And that is one aspect.

The other is the amount of armor (shield generators)
you put on your ship to protect is...

And so on.

Adios
KLM

Alright, a few updates...

First, thanks to Braden, GMPhD for directing me to the observations/conclusions he had already posted in the Errata thread. That was probably one of the first places I should have looked... and I feel a bit embarrassed for not having done just that.

Anyway, the Errata thread gave me some very useful information I was lacking (particularly with the Capital Ships)... and while I have to agree that for the most part Carella had to have simply pulled stats out of his nether regions (especially with those horrendously-statted Shuttles), there are a few trends here and there. Some were good, and some were bad... but still it's something to work from.

Second, after further review I've reached the conclusion that even though the Proctor is technically classified as a fighter class it may not really belong there. It skews the averages noticeably and could easily be put in its own classification -- perhaps something that would mirror the 'stock light freighters' or 'scout ships' from Star Wars. With that in mind, when you factor out the Proctor the fighter craft shake out as follows:
- Average 12.19 MDC per foot of length...
- Shields (when they have them) average 196.89% of Main Body MDC...
- Cockpits/Pilot's Compartments/Escape Pods average 27.73% of Main Body MDC...

Third, I added flight speed to the spreadsheet -- and this is probably the most consistent element I've found so far.
- Fighters: Mach 11.31 (not counting the blazingly fast Scorpion)
- Shuttles: Mach 5 (yeah... big surprise there)
- Frigates: Mach 8.63 (Would be even more constant if not for the Hunter)
- Cruisers: Mach 8.5
- Capital Ships: Mach 7.83

FTL speed is even more consistent, with Capital Ships cruising along at 6 light years per hour and Frigates/Cruisers a little over 4.6 light years per hour each.

Lastly, I started factoring in weight... and good grief, was I feeling Braden's pain here!

Seriously... the tonnage stats are so over the map, I really don't think that they can be used with any real degree of accuracy (at least for determining MDC of ships). I've calculated averages, of course, and those could be used for future efforts I guess.

In the end, Servo, I couldn't come up with a stat system for designing new Phase World ships, and I came out and said as much in the introduction.

What I managed was to compose some things to consider when creating your own ship, rough number of weapon mounts, MDC, size, and so on.
Things are still broken, but they should be consistanly broken, which is a kind of system.

But with the information presented, is it possible to come up with a breakdown like we have for Body Armor? (Which is like Head/Helmet=80-100% of Main Body, Arms=25%, Legs=50%) I know that ships will have more locations, but coming up with a 'skeleton' for base and then going from there might be the answer to a 'Creation Table'.

I believe so. At the very least, it can give someone a few rough ideas when creating their own ships.

As Braden said, though, the whole PW ship creation process is a broken system. I make no claim that what I've assembled is any better than (or even anywhere as good as) what we're going to see from Braden's sourcebook.

In fact, I'm not all that sure I even should work on this too much more for that reason. What I've got done now should help me immensely with my immediate needs (and hopefully will also be of use to others), and I certainly don't want to step on Braden's toes here or otherwise give the impression that I think I can do better than he can in this regard.

It's no skin off my nose, dude. Personally, your "system" has waaay too much math for me, even though it might work well for yourself and others. (I'm lazy, you see )

Anyone expecting a ship construction system is going to be quite dissapointed by what I came up with. There are no points, no math based on the vessel's size or mass, or volume. Just some general guidelines (like how much cargo can a cruiser carry? How many weapons am I allowed to put on a destroyer? How much MDC should a frigate have?)

The idea is that you find an existing ship design, and then use that as a template with which to come up with your own ship. I know that readers will either use it, or complain about it and then do their own thing, so it matters not to me.

Darkmax wrote:I'm wondering what do engineers do when designing ships in the real world?...

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-035.htm

I found this article very helpfull and... well, amusing.

--------
For my part, I have 2 methods to design a ship
(more precisely, to stat a ship).

1, Compare it to canon designs. Keep in mind, that
those ships are presumed to be a cost effective solution
for any problem, that the TGE, CCW or UWW analists
found.
Of course, one can deviate a little here, a little there,
after all, the Three Galaxies are somewhat stagnating
technology-wise, so it is not unreasonable for a second
or even third rate power, to field something a bit better
that the big boy's gadgets.
For example creating a ship, which is about 10% better
in every respect, than the Hunter. But... Give it a weight
(and size) of about 20% bigger, same for crew need.
And unless you have a good reason to implement it
as a mass produced unit, add a hefty price tag, like
180-200% of the Hunter.

With this method gut feeling is everything. Or playtesting.

Going into more details only modify the end result with
minuscule amounts - IMO does not worth the fuss.

2, Completely rewrite the Palladium vehicle system,
otherwise you will not find any sense.

For my part, we (a bunch of Hungarian RPG-ers) begun
a vehicle desing system, which calculates with
- technological levels (separate for hull/armor, engines,
shields, sensors, weaponry, life support, etc)
- mass
- hull strenght (acceleration/G, pressure, compartments)
- hull volume
- hull area
- armor weight (divided by hull area)
- cargo space
- minibars and holosuites

As the project stands (halted about a year ago) we
had several Excel tables, with input fields for main
data.

Making it a paper based "ship creation" method
means that the "engineering team" have to
calculate with secondary and cubic functions.
Probably the wet dream of every teenager

That was the point when we ran out of steam.

Adios
KLM

And point 2, either neccessitate the rewamping
of the entire Palladium vehicle concept (remember
what I wrote about that "revised" UAR-1 Enforcer,
with its THIRTY THOUSAND armor MDC? ) or...
well we can implement "scales", but then we have
the unpleasant feature (bug) that a 950 ton
heavy fighter will humiliatingly kick the bottom
of an 1050 ton light frigate... (if we draw the "border"
at 1000 tons).

Adios
KLM

Actually a game from a long time ago had some seriously heavy fighters. The name of the game was "Renegade Legion" (and yes I still play it!) Some if it's fighters could weigh in at 300 tons. Although that was the maximum weight for their fighters.

Then the Proctor is still the recorded as fighters go.

But I was thinking on something else. You know, as
stuff (robots, ships) gets bigger, their MDC/ton gets
less and less.

So if we implement a scale system (like under 1000 tons
MDC/ton is like 50, between 1001 and 10000 tons MDC/ton
is like 20...) to get results comparable to Palladium stats...

We have "breakpoints" in the system, like a 950 ton
heavy fighter having - say - 47 thousand MDC, while
an 1050 ton corvette having like 20 thousand.
However, both ships are constructed from the same
material, and the sole technical difference might very
well be a hundred tons of armor, which makes
the corvette slower but better armored...
In theory.

Adios
KLM

I have noticed that too, KLM... even with the tonnage stats being all over the map, there are definite breaks.

This is what I found when I tallied everything up:

EDIT: Blech -- copying/pasting straight from Excel doesn't quite work out the way I'd like... oh well...

Name MDC/Ton
Scorpion-Class Light Fighter 91.67
FB-49 Fire Eater 36.67
Flying Fang Interceptor 48.00
SF-101A Black Eagle 66.67
Shadow Bolt Strike Ship 44.44
BIF-67 Katana 40.00
Broadsword Delta-Wing 27.50
Star Ghost-Class FIghter 17.60
Proctor-Class Interceptor 2.90
Averages -- Starfighter 41.72
Averages -- Without Proctor 46.57
Averages -- Without Scorpion 35.47


"Rain Of Death" Transport 3.08
CAF Assault Shuttle 1.10
Averages -- Shuttles 2.09

Arcane Mark II Patrol Ship 0.35
Hunter-Class Destroyer 0.75
Berserker Class Warship 0.43
Scimitar-Class Patrol Ship 0.42
Averages -- Frigates 0.49


Warshield-Class Cruiser 0.45
Smasher-Class Cruiser 0.26
Dwarven Iron Ship 0.25
Averages -- Cruisers 0.32


Typical Runner Ship 6.67
Typical Mercant Ship 0.50
Averages -- Merchants 3.58


Protector-Class Battleship 0.0167
Packmaster-Class Carriership 0.0016
Doombringer Dreadnought 0.0035
Averages -- Capital 0.0073

It makes sense, yes... but how do we know what ships are using which material?

One could break it down to major groups (CAF, TGE, UWW, etc.), but even then they're likely to use different materials.

That might help when creating a completely new set of ships though.

Some of us actually like Star Trek....

Carl Gleba wrote:Some of us actually like Star Trek....

...especially the Deep Space 9 series.

Somehow I get addicted to the "Chief, you like it"
part (ie. O'Brien explaining, that it was very boring
to just stand by at the transporter on the big E, and
nothing failed. But on DS9, all the scavenged, part
cardassian, part bajoran, part starfleet equipment
continously broke dow - it never got boring ).

Adios
KLM

I liked DS9 too -- it was in stark contrast to the spic-and-span clean feel of everything in ST:TNG. In other words, it was "Dirty Trek."


But to be perfectly honest... although this is Phase World, there's really no way we can keep Trek/Star Wars/Babylon 5/etc. from influencing how we play it. The political balance of power between the CAF and the TGE is far too reminiscent of the Federation/Klingon Empire (or Cardassians, or Dominion, or whoever). The OCC emphasis on smugglers/pirates/bounty hunters and other 'unsavory characters' is far too reminiscent of Star Wars. Phase World itself (and Center in particular) is like Tattooine/Mos Eisley on steroids.

There are more than enough different elements for Phase World to be counted as its own game rather than just another sci-fi series rip-off, of coruse... but either the similarities are too strong -- or the other series have just too great an impact on our own perceptions -- to dismiss.

Come on, blame paralell evolution.

You know:

Mos Eisley - B5 - DS9 - Center

Also, most space operas have their own share
of crime (meaning smugglers with the fastest
heap of junk, and pirates... Or.. well, Ferengis)
,and so on.

Adios
KLM

I will use most of those ideas except for the one which I will not use anything like that particular one in my game. But I'll not mention it's name or slam on it! We have to be friendly here!

and while being courteous and polite,
we have a plan to kill everybody

Adios
KLM

KLM, you mean the PCs! I don't plan on killing anyone in RL.

It was a high ball, from like the
"Rules of firefight"...

Rules like:
1, Bring the biggest gun you can
2, Bring a buddy, with the biggest gun he can
3, Let im bring his buddies too...

and so on...

N+1, Be polite and courteous, but have a plan to kill everybody

Also, paragraphs, like "Frienly fire - isn't"...

And so on.

Adios
KLM

I would like to see some good rules that makes starships easy and fun to make for everyone!

Use the Force, Luke

Seriously: My "well proven" method is this:

Envision the ship. It might start as looking at a neat
picture, with "Wow".

Or begin with "we need a ..." (mothership, runner ship,
bomber, pleasure yact, toxic waste hauler, you name it),
and try to figure out, what it needs for the role.

The third starting point is who builds this ship. We had projects
like "an independent system wants to build its own fleet"...
This gives you starting data, like technical and financial
potential. (Like they can build like 300 fighters, 100 patrol
boats and a dozen frigates).

Whatever you start from this three-forked path, do the
other two, and then you will have a general ship, maybe
complete with deck plans, and definitely complete with
equipment (cargo space, craft and weaponry carried, etc.)

The you have to fit it into the "canon" or the "housewise"
power curve. Compare it to other designs, based on
tonnage, set the stats accordingly.
Price... Well, use "gut feeling" based on other designs.

Keep such things in mind, that the "canon" ships are
probably the best bang for the buck, even if their
"market" price means a hefty profit.

Also, for my part, I use "static" universe... Ie. no technical
revolution, like what we are experiencing in the last like
150 years.
This means, that an underground organisation can develop
and field designs which can easily compete with major
powers' toys (not unlike the "basement constructed" A-wing
and the junkheap Millenium Falcon. Mind you, even in Star Trek,
a 100 years old design, like the Klingon Bird of Prey is still
a formidable warship.).

Adios
KLM

I've been using my statistical averages and plugging them into the AU:GG ship creation tables and have gotten some fairly promising results so far. Nothing concrete (or even really postable) at this point, but it's not been too bad either.

I refuse to use AA:GG! It has too many problems as far as I am concerned. I'll use system, but bit that for designing my Starships.