Thread: Re: Power vs efficiency

12 posts.

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.

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.
Todd--

>From a design standpoint, Battletech's heat shedding is just a disguised
power system, focused on output rather than input. Going into overheat
would just be "over-running" your powerplant for limited periods of time
at the risk of breaking it. And if you could stand in a pond to mitigate
over-revving your power plant it would work the same.

Nonetheless, your analogy is correct in the way that could work in
Traveller, if you wanted to build your ship that way.

Good luck selling the B5 main gun power-outage to Traveller designers,
though. But it is a little like battleship main gun overpressure lighting
off the float planes and starting fires on the fantail.

Like you, I think it could be fun, for people who enjoy playing that way.

Dave

> 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

I misspoke. The Battletech heat sink system also allowed FASA to establish
that the female Mech pilots wore thong bikinis in combat, which I recall
was a significant aspect of the game's appeal.

> Todd--
>
> From a design standpoint, Battletech's heat shedding is just a disguised
> power system, focused on output rather than input. Going into overheat
> would just be "over-running" your powerplant for limited periods of time
> at the risk of breaking it. And if you could stand in a pond to mitigate
> over-revving your power plant it would work the same.
>
> Nonetheless, your analogy is correct in the way that could work in
> Traveller, if you wanted to build your ship that way.
>
> Good luck selling the B5 main gun power-outage to Traveller designers,
> though. But it is a little like battleship main gun overpressure lighting
> off the float planes and starting fires on the fantail.
>
> Like you, I think it could be fun, for people who enjoy playing that way.
>
> Dave

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM, <> wrote:

> I misspoke. The Battletech heat sink system also allowed FASA to establish
> that the female Mech pilots wore thong bikinis in combat, which I recall
> was a significant aspect of the game's appeal.
>
>
At a certain level that is a very important aspect of RPG/Wargame
design......
--
Evyn
No question. For GDW, a "sexy" cover was a really cool piece of hardware.
For FASA, it was good-looking young people doing exiting things, and it
definitely worked for them.

Battletech had all of those sourcebooks for the various Mech companies and
clans and they always had the pseudo-Osprey color center section with
pictures of people and gear. And it made me laugh because there were
always one or two that reminded the reader, "the extreme heat in the
Battlemech requires their pilots to wear minimal clothing to remain cool."

The fact that for many Traveller players, the "sexiest" of all covers was
completely black with a colored stripe across it just drove home the point
how different our design and marketing, hence audiences, were.

I'm confident that Battletech far outsold Traveller many times over. When
I worked at GDW we knew who the cool company was.

> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM, <> wrote:
>
>> I misspoke. The Battletech heat sink system also allowed FASA to
>> establish
>> that the female Mech pilots wore thong bikinis in combat, which I recall
>> was a significant aspect of the game's appeal.
>>
>>
> At a certain level that is a very important aspect of RPG/Wargame
> design......
> --
> Evyn
>

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM, <> wrote:

>
>
> The fact that for many Traveller players, the "sexiest" of all covers was
> completely black with a colored stripe across it just drove home the point
> how different our design and marketing, hence audiences, were.

Ain't that the truth. I am one of those weird fans that far prefers
Literary Science Fiction to all of the film and tv forms, Mind you I like
it in Comic form too, just as long as there aren't any superheros (in the
caped running around in their underwear sense, not the the "Pulp" sense)....
--
Evyn
I believe its the same phenomena why most people find Google's main search
page the best design. Simple, functional, not cluttered, appeals to
gearheads be they programmers, engineers or gamers.

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM, <> wrote:

> **
>
>
> No question. For GDW, a "sexy" cover was a really cool piece of hardware.
> For FASA, it was good-looking young people doing exiting things, and it
> definitely worked for them.
>
> Battletech had all of those sourcebooks for the various Mech companies and
> clans and they always had the pseudo-Osprey color center section with
> pictures of people and gear. And it made me laugh because there were
> always one or two that reminded the reader, "the extreme heat in the
> Battlemech requires their pilots to wear minimal clothing to remain cool."
>
> The fact that for many Traveller players, the "sexiest" of all covers was
> completely black with a colored stripe across it just drove home the point
> how different our design and marketing, hence audiences, were.
>
> I'm confident that Battletech far outsold Traveller many times over. When
> I worked at GDW we knew who the cool company was.
>
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM, <> wrote:
> >
> >> I misspoke. The Battletech heat sink system also allowed FASA to
> >> establish
> >> that the female Mech pilots wore thong bikinis in combat, which I recall
> >> was a significant aspect of the game's appeal.
> >>
> >>
> > At a certain level that is a very important aspect of RPG/Wargame
> > design......
> > --
> > Evyn
> >
>
>
>

--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
> I believe its the same phenomena why most people find Google's main search
> page the best design. Simple, functional, not cluttered, appeals to
> gearheads be they programmers, engineers or gamers.
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM, <> wrote:
>
>>

I'd see the main advantage is where you design a ship so it powers what you think you'll need, not everything at once. I.e. if the enemy deploys sandcaster shots, you shift power from the lasers to Meson guns.

If the enemy starts tossing missiles like crazy, you shift power to the rapid-fire turrets rather than the heavy turrets. If they are only tossing a few, you don't have to divert as much.

By reducing the necessary power plant size, you can fit in more equipment in the same hull, whether this is fuel, personnel (for damage control/marines), ammunition, more weapons, etc.

I.e. try designing two ships, both 20,000 tons, with different types of weapons, but as much else being identical. For one ship you design the main reactor to fire everything, and the second you design the reactor to power one of the two types. I'm curious about the results now, myself.

Todd Kes

--- On Thu, 6/28/12, wrote:
> Nonetheless, your analogy is correct in the way that could
> work in
> Traveller, if you wanted to build your ship that way.
>
> Good luck selling the B5 main gun power-outage to Traveller
> designers,
> though. But it is a little like battleship main gun
> overpressure lighting
> off the float planes and starting fires on the fantail.
>
> Like you, I think it could be fun, for people who enjoy
> playing that way.
>
> Dave

In a way this was done in spirits some of the original designs - having to power down some systems to bring another to its full potential. However, if you take it to an extreme conclusion you could have a ship that is finely honed, but unable to cope with any damage to engineering.

________________________________
From: Todd Kes
Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012, 20:12
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Power vs efficiency


 
I'd see the main advantage is where you design a ship so it powers what you think you'll need, not everything at once. I.e. if the enemy deploys sandcaster shots, you shift power from the lasers to Meson guns.

If the enemy starts tossing missiles like crazy, you shift power to the rapid-fire turrets rather than the heavy turrets. If they are only tossing a few, you don't have to divert as much.

By reducing the necessary power plant size, you can fit in more equipment in the same hull, whether this is fuel, personnel (for damage control/marines), ammunition, more weapons, etc.

I.e. try designing two ships, both 20,000 tons, with different types of weapons, but as much else being identical. For one ship you design the main reactor to fire everything, and the second you design the reactor to power one of the two types. I'm curious about the results now, myself.

Todd Kes

--- On Thu, 6/28/12, wrote:
> Nonetheless, your analogy is correct in the way that could
> work in
> Traveller, if you wanted to build your ship that way.
>
> Good luck selling the B5 main gun power-outage to Traveller
> designers,
> though. But it is a little like battleship main gun
> overpressure lighting
> off the float planes and starting fires on the fantail.
>
> Like you, I think it could be fun, for people who enjoy
> playing that way.
>
So the basic military reason you don't want to under power your vessel is
that your enemy 'will' eventually figure it out and exploit it.

Force you to put power into A then while your doing that exploit the fact
you don't have power to B.

Don't misunderstand me from a real world perspective it makes sense that
under powered designs get made however I think military procurement offices
would rather have a fully powered vessel vs an under powered one. And there
are plenty of reasons under powered designed actually get build and used
but at the end of the day it going to be bad for the folks using them.

This is purely from a metagame view of coarse.

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Todd Kes <> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I'd see the main advantage is where you design a ship so it powers what
> you think you'll need, not everything at once. I.e. if the enemy deploys
> sandcaster shots, you shift power from the lasers to Meson guns.
>
> If the enemy starts tossing missiles like crazy, you shift power to the
> rapid-fire turrets rather than the heavy turrets. If they are only tossing
> a few, you don't have to divert as much.
>
> By reducing the necessary power plant size, you can fit in more equipment
> in the same hull, whether this is fuel, personnel (for damage
> control/marines), ammunition, more weapons, etc.
>
> I.e. try designing two ships, both 20,000 tons, with different types of
> weapons, but as much else being identical. For one ship you design the main
> reactor to fire everything, and the second you design the reactor to power
> one of the two types. I'm curious about the results now, myself.
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Thu, 6/28/12, wrote:
> > Nonetheless, your analogy is correct in the way that could
> > work in
> > Traveller, if you wanted to build your ship that way.
> >
> > Good luck selling the B5 main gun power-outage to Traveller
> > designers,
> > though. But it is a little like battleship main gun
> > overpressure lighting
> > off the float planes and starting fires on the fantail.
> >
> > Like you, I think it could be fun, for people who enjoy
> > playing that way.
> >
> > Dave
>
>

--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.