Re: An SDNW Proposal
Posted: 2010-05-01 10:29pm
While that is a nice general reference Skimmer I don't think that tonnage is the most relevant metric to use. In a sci-fi setting where use of various fields and exotic materials is commonplace there is a lot more potential for density or cost per ton to skew wildly. It is plausible to assume that two functionally similar ships within the same navy can differ in mass by an order of magnitude because of design philosophy. Cruiser A may heavily utilize shielding for its defense, robust hardened systems for EW and damage control, and high powered energy weapons for offense. Cruiser B utilizes thick coats of exotic superdense armour with an artificial bonding field for defense, large numbers of redundant systems for damage control, and a ballistic weapons suite. These are two cruisers of the same value in game and have identical capabilities in generic open field battle but Cruiser B can easily mass five or more times A while being of approximately the same volume. We can easily use fluff to justify this, perhaps Cruiser B represents a much greater up front cost to construct "in universe" but utilizes primarily well-established older technologies that are reliably engineered and very common while Cruiser A is initially cheaper because of its substantially lower amount of material necessary to construct, but much of its technology is slightly newer or less common and some of its components have little technical gremlins that drives its upkeep costs up significantly. Over their service life they even out.
I think we should stop worrying about ship designations as individual hulls of some nebulous size but consider them as indivisible "units" of some qualitative grade. A heavy hull may represent a single battleship or 10,000 hyperspace equipped space fighters. If they get into a battle and do 50% damage to each other we just say that the battleships point-defenses tore up 5000 fighters while the fighter swarm put gaping wounds in the superstructure of the battleship but the tough bastard is still fighting. They started the same value, ended the same value, and performed equally well, the fact that there is a 5 order of magnitude difference in ship number is meaningless unless a player attempts to circumvent the rules.
That being said I have a few questions for Steve:
1)I wish to play as an AI race. Thus all geological concerns for habitation are trivial except for resource availability. As even a single star system contains a truly huge amount of exploitable material there is little incentive for them to expand in a similar manner to biological species. Since they aren't a Aggressive Homogenizing Swarm I reason that their territorial holdings would be compact and heavily built up. The problem I have is that while I can represent this by buying a single Core sector and pumping it full of extra GDP it seems like it is borderline mechanical abuse and invites other mechanical issues during game play. What do you think the best solution is to replicate the fact that my faction does not care about territorial volume or truly possess a civilian population and yet not abuse the system?
2) Is it safe to assume that universal translators of high general competence are bog standard tech? They seem necessary for general plot convenience but you may wish communication to be inherently difficult.
3) Is having a biologically inhospitable environment considered under system defense? It seems like it easily should but again I want to avoid possible mechanical abuses. For species with wildly non-human biology their habitation itself may be a deadly enemy and I am just curious as whether this will have any mechanical representation or be handled by RPing and fiat.
That's it for now, I'll probably have more later on down the road of the creative process.
I think we should stop worrying about ship designations as individual hulls of some nebulous size but consider them as indivisible "units" of some qualitative grade. A heavy hull may represent a single battleship or 10,000 hyperspace equipped space fighters. If they get into a battle and do 50% damage to each other we just say that the battleships point-defenses tore up 5000 fighters while the fighter swarm put gaping wounds in the superstructure of the battleship but the tough bastard is still fighting. They started the same value, ended the same value, and performed equally well, the fact that there is a 5 order of magnitude difference in ship number is meaningless unless a player attempts to circumvent the rules.
That being said I have a few questions for Steve:
1)I wish to play as an AI race. Thus all geological concerns for habitation are trivial except for resource availability. As even a single star system contains a truly huge amount of exploitable material there is little incentive for them to expand in a similar manner to biological species. Since they aren't a Aggressive Homogenizing Swarm I reason that their territorial holdings would be compact and heavily built up. The problem I have is that while I can represent this by buying a single Core sector and pumping it full of extra GDP it seems like it is borderline mechanical abuse and invites other mechanical issues during game play. What do you think the best solution is to replicate the fact that my faction does not care about territorial volume or truly possess a civilian population and yet not abuse the system?
2) Is it safe to assume that universal translators of high general competence are bog standard tech? They seem necessary for general plot convenience but you may wish communication to be inherently difficult.
3) Is having a biologically inhospitable environment considered under system defense? It seems like it easily should but again I want to avoid possible mechanical abuses. For species with wildly non-human biology their habitation itself may be a deadly enemy and I am just curious as whether this will have any mechanical representation or be handled by RPing and fiat.
That's it for now, I'll probably have more later on down the road of the creative process.

