In the end for TNE I think scale is the problem. Unless the adventure
campaign operates at a lower tech level and/or is in a collapsed part of
charted space the issue is resources. The 3I and Regency actually 'have'
the facilities to build large if they want to. Which doesn't even preclude
the Zhodani who's military infrastructure is mostly intact unlike the 3I
former systems.
But what you mention 'is' a compelling reason to design that way. but only
if resources of various types are limited (raw materials and human capital)
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Todd Kes <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> If you want to use another game for example, try Battletech. They don't
> have power issues, but do have heat issues.
>
> For the ground vehicles, one popular stunt is referred to as 'weapons
> bracketing'. Essentially you have one group of weapons that you use at long
> range, and a second group that you use at short range. If you try to fire
> both, the Mech overheats, and you are a target until you cool off.
>
> I.e. a Mech armed with PPCs (long range, high heat, 1:1 dmg:heat) and
> medium lasers (short range, 5:3 dmg:heat). It can dump 30 pts of heat per
> turn. That is enough to fire 3 PPCs, or 10 medium lasers (not counting heat
> from movement). If the player tried to put in enough heat sinks to fire
> everything, it would drop the total firepower to 2 PPCs and 6 medium
> lasers. Since you would not be at the right range to fire both weapons at
> the same time, you are effectively losing 1/3 your firepower for no reason.
>
> The Traveler example would be a capital ship with anti-shipping weapons,
> anti-fighter defenses, ECM, ECCM, and engine.
>
> If the enemy is trying to hold off and send the fighters after the capital
> ship, it can divert its power to the anti-fighter defenses and maneuvering,
> while keeping enough electronics so the enemy doesn't get a good shot off.
>
> When the enemy tries to close, it can divert its reactor to the main gun,
> for ship-killing blows.
>
> The mass that would be taken up by a larger reactor is instead taken up by
> more weaponry, defenses, fuel, etc.
>
> Now in B5:Crusade, where the Capital ship loses all power for a minute
> when firing the main gun, that is when the Captain should be looking for
> anything to increase the power reserves/generation capacity.
>
> It also allows a bit of fun, where the players try to shoot down the last
> enemy fighter so they can Jump before the mothership gets in range and
> kills them.
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Thu, 6/28/12, John Potter wrote:
> While an interesting story telling mechanic, I think players
> and fictitious military systems designers would simply say if your
> under-powering the X design then change its role and/or change its systems.
> Or make a bigger ship to fit a power plant that will power everything all
> the time.
>
> Also I can't imagine a Naval Commander of any type that would accept that
> part of their ship simply won't work while flushing the toilet (I use this
> joke because I had it happen in a GURPS space game).
>
> I can only really see this happening in a prototype design, or a test bed
> made to test prototype designs so that requirements can be determined in
> real world conditions.
> Also we are all for better or worst are gearheads and I think we gravitate
> towards balance and efficiency unless there is a compelling reason not to.
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
campaign operates at a lower tech level and/or is in a collapsed part of
charted space the issue is resources. The 3I and Regency actually 'have'
the facilities to build large if they want to. Which doesn't even preclude
the Zhodani who's military infrastructure is mostly intact unlike the 3I
former systems.
But what you mention 'is' a compelling reason to design that way. but only
if resources of various types are limited (raw materials and human capital)
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Todd Kes <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> If you want to use another game for example, try Battletech. They don't
> have power issues, but do have heat issues.
>
> For the ground vehicles, one popular stunt is referred to as 'weapons
> bracketing'. Essentially you have one group of weapons that you use at long
> range, and a second group that you use at short range. If you try to fire
> both, the Mech overheats, and you are a target until you cool off.
>
> I.e. a Mech armed with PPCs (long range, high heat, 1:1 dmg:heat) and
> medium lasers (short range, 5:3 dmg:heat). It can dump 30 pts of heat per
> turn. That is enough to fire 3 PPCs, or 10 medium lasers (not counting heat
> from movement). If the player tried to put in enough heat sinks to fire
> everything, it would drop the total firepower to 2 PPCs and 6 medium
> lasers. Since you would not be at the right range to fire both weapons at
> the same time, you are effectively losing 1/3 your firepower for no reason.
>
> The Traveler example would be a capital ship with anti-shipping weapons,
> anti-fighter defenses, ECM, ECCM, and engine.
>
> If the enemy is trying to hold off and send the fighters after the capital
> ship, it can divert its power to the anti-fighter defenses and maneuvering,
> while keeping enough electronics so the enemy doesn't get a good shot off.
>
> When the enemy tries to close, it can divert its reactor to the main gun,
> for ship-killing blows.
>
> The mass that would be taken up by a larger reactor is instead taken up by
> more weaponry, defenses, fuel, etc.
>
> Now in B5:Crusade, where the Capital ship loses all power for a minute
> when firing the main gun, that is when the Captain should be looking for
> anything to increase the power reserves/generation capacity.
>
> It also allows a bit of fun, where the players try to shoot down the last
> enemy fighter so they can Jump before the mothership gets in range and
> kills them.
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Thu, 6/28/12, John Potter wrote:
> While an interesting story telling mechanic, I think players
> and fictitious military systems designers would simply say if your
> under-powering the X design then change its role and/or change its systems.
> Or make a bigger ship to fit a power plant that will power everything all
> the time.
>
> Also I can't imagine a Naval Commander of any type that would accept that
> part of their ship simply won't work while flushing the toilet (I use this
> joke because I had it happen in a GURPS space game).
>
> I can only really see this happening in a prototype design, or a test bed
> made to test prototype designs so that requirements can be determined in
> real world conditions.
> Also we are all for better or worst are gearheads and I think we gravitate
> towards balance and efficiency unless there is a compelling reason not to.
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.