Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:07 am**

Wow, a fleet construction guide without any ship construction rules/tables. Hmm...

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:54 am**

Someone mentioned they are actually working on ship construction rules. I am probably wrong, but I think it was Galacticus Kid (it was deffinitely one of the freelancers).

That is probably my most inticipated PW book.

No offense Braden, Fleets was great and I am really, really looking forward to Thundercloud Galaxy, and Carl Dimensional Outbreak, and heck all of them, but I really want ship constuction rules A La AU:GG (but for PW, and a set that works cohesively and with canon ships, at least more or less with canon ships).
-Matt

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:57 am**

Khanibal wrote:Wow, a fleet construction guide without any ship construction rules/tables. Hmm...

Huh? there are tabels wiht the stats for various ship classes and weapons.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:24 pm**

I think he was looking for something like AU:GG just like I was. What there was, was more guidelines then rules.
-Matt

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:56 pm**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Khanibal wrote:Wow, a fleet construction guide without any ship construction rules/tables. Hmm...

Huh? there are tabels wiht the stats for various ship classes and weapons.

What is being implied is, the tables "Do not have the numbers" to quote an Atevi numerologist.
Die-hard gamer techno-files want to have a bunch of calculations to juggle around and tweak.
This is why R. Talsorain's 'Mekton Zeta+' was much loved / hated by gamers. Technofile GM's (and players) had days of calculator goodness to look forward to in designing the simpilist of machines. While casual "I just wanna blow stuff up / get with the hot vampire" gamers loathed it for the very same reason.

As a die-hard technophile, bring on the values, bring on the tonnes-per-gun, darn it, in this case I WANT to break out my slide rule.
oh wait... I don't need to wait for a Phaseworld version cuz I have AU:GG.
-phew-
Problem solved... to hack with canon PW stuff... the gun ranges suck anyways.

That being said, Fleets was a nice source book for GM's only

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:14 pm**

I was hoping for something along the lines of Battlespace (c pat. tm. pdq.) from the battletech series.
"small freighters" run between xt and 3t tons. A civilan power system will take up p%tons, a military power system... etc.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:50 pm**

I think AU: GG is your best bet for the immediate future.

But really, the odds of something like that coming out soon isn't very high. Palladium just dosn't go for the Graphing Calculator Only (GCO) style of gameplay. Quick and dirty stats and the prefered way to come out on top is to sell your GM on some hairbrained technobabble.

You might get it someday...but I wouldn't hold my breath on the immediate future. No when palladium already has a dozen other books that ARE in it's prefered style coming out.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:22 pm**

azazel1024 wrote: I really want ship constuction rules A La AU:GG (but for PW, and a set that works cohesively and with canon ships, at least more or less with canon ships).
-Matt

Yeah... best of luck with that.

I spent an entire weekend during the writing of Fleets trying to come up with just such a thing, and do you know what I discovered? That the established Phase World ships at that time had not been built with any rhyme or reason. There was no formula to decipher, no way to create a set of ship building rules that would also be able to create the ships that had already been established. So, in line with my belief that gaming should be more about the game than about a bunch of mathematics and record keeping, I went the other way, and said that you should just use the established ships as a guide or template, and then modify/make news ones based around them.

I'm not saying that such a construction ruleset cannot be done, simply that it was too much work for me to figure out. Also, speaking as a GM, if the system is too complicated, then I'm not going to use it anyway, so there was no further point in me wasting valuable writing time on something I myself would never use.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:11 pm**

But, I LIKE number crunching.

Still I can see your point. A little variation due to different construction methods can only justify so much variation, and it would be a HUGE pain for most people to do. I personally like thrust/mass pseudo calculations. I'll take a look at this AU: GG (after I google it) and see what I can blage. (Thank you John Ringo. Best line from the Looking Glass series: "Didn't there used to be a planet here?")

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:21 pm**

Hmm... Google unhelpful. Linky?

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:11 am**

You could always write your own rules and submit it to the Rifter.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:31 am**

Hmm... okay, I'll give it a shot.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:32 am**

Braden Campbell wrote:
azazel1024 wrote: I really want ship constuction rules A La AU:GG (but for PW, and a set that works cohesively and with canon ships, at least more or less with canon ships).
-Matt

Yeah... best of luck with that.

I spent an entire weekend during the writing of Fleets trying to come up with just such a thing, and do you know what I discovered? That the established Phase World ships at that time had not been built with any rhyme or reason. There was no formula to decipher, no way to create a set of ship building rules that would also be able to create the ships that had already been established. So, in line with my belief that gaming should be more about the game than about a bunch of mathematics and record keeping, I went the other way, and said that you should just use the established ships as a guide or template, and then modify/make news ones based around them.

I'm not saying that such a construction ruleset cannot be done, simply that it was too much work for me to figure out. Also, speaking as a GM, if the system is too complicated, then I'm not going to use it anyway, so there was no further point in me wasting valuable writing time on something I myself would never use.

I sorta came up with the same thing. My idea is more to try to come up with rules that at least hew as close as you can to the established ships in canon. I've also tried coming up with rules and a lot of ships were pretty far off. The closest I could come was different rules for different classes plus different tech levels allowed more space for ship modules, better modules etc, with the likes of say the CCW and Kreeghor having one of the higher levels and places like UWW having a low tech level and high magic level.
-Matt

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:21 pm**

Khanibal wrote:Hmm... okay, I'll give it a shot.

Check a program named "Springsharp" first.

Adios
KLM

Posted: **Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:45 pm**

Is it me or are the planet ships or whatever they are called in PW seem like a cheap death star rip off? Talk about unoriginal. I'm surprised Lucasfilms didn't sue Palladium for copyright infringement.

Posted: **Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:04 pm**

kmspade wrote:Is it me or are the planet ships or whatever they are called in PW seem like a cheap death star rip off? Talk about unoriginal. I'm surprised Lucasfilms didn't sue Palladium for copyright infringement.

They probablly didn't because they don't own a copyright?

Not like the death star was the first ship that size in fiction. No one owns it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:29 pm**

Yeah, probably not. I have no idea.

And the rest of the book was cool. Just saying that when I saw that my first thought was "Rifts Death Star, Yawn." But the nice thing about role playing games is that I don't have to use it.

So in my little corner of the megaverse, they simply won't exist.

Posted: **Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:32 am**

-ahem-
Berzerkers, Fred Saberhagen..ummmm..circa 1968? when they first came out in short stories?
Moon to planet sized killer robots able to wipe out entire solar systems by themselves.
usualy described as giant globes.

Posted: **Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:24 pm**

DhAkael wrote:-ahem-
Berzerkers, Fred Saberhagen..ummmm..circa 1968? when they first came out in short stories?
Moon to planet sized killer robots able to wipe out entire solar systems by themselves.
usualy described as giant globes.

Exactly where homage comes from

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:28 am**

Braden Campbell wrote:
DhAkael wrote:-ahem-
Berzerkers, Fred Saberhagen..ummmm..circa 1968? when they first came out in short stories?
Moon to planet sized killer robots able to wipe out entire solar systems by themselves.
usualy described as giant globes.

Exactly where homage comes from

And where does the three beams of energy that come fom a massive satellite dish and combine to make an ultra destructo beam come from then?

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:48 pm**

Khanibal wrote:Hmm... Google unhelpful. Linky?

http://www.palladiumbooks.com/Merchant2 ... _Code=H500

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:57 pm**

Xar wrote:
Khanibal wrote:Hmm... Google unhelpful. Linky?

http://www.palladiumbooks.com/Merchant2 ... _Code=H500

AAHH! thanks.

Posted: **Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:50 pm**

Anthar wrote:
Braden Campbell wrote:
DhAkael wrote:-ahem-
Berzerkers, Fred Saberhagen..ummmm..circa 1968? when they first came out in short stories?
Moon to planet sized killer robots able to wipe out entire solar systems by themselves.
usualy described as giant globes.

Exactly where homage comes from

And where does the three beams of energy that come fom a massive satellite dish and combine to make an ultra destructo beam come from then?

I haven't read Fleets, but i believe the origional manuscript had the beams operting seperatly for the most part and when fired on a large target like a planet you could calculate greater damage. the fact that it looks exacly like the another well known death dealing star may be a concequence of editing or artistic impression.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:44 pm**

Greyaxe wrote:
Anthar wrote:
Braden Campbell wrote:
DhAkael wrote:-ahem-
Berzerkers, Fred Saberhagen..ummmm..circa 1968? when they first came out in short stories?
Moon to planet sized killer robots able to wipe out entire solar systems by themselves.
usualy described as giant globes.

Exactly where homage comes from

And where does the three beams of energy that come fom a massive satellite dish and combine to make an ultra destructo beam come from then?

I haven't read Fleets, but i believe the origional manuscript had the beams operting seperatly for the most part and when fired on a large target like a planet you could calculate greater damage. the fact that it looks exacly like the another well known death dealing star may be a concequence of editing or artistic impression.

If they made it a cube, somebody would say it was a Borg ship. What about the Tangent? Is that a rip off of Stargate. No. it is a extension of planet bound pyramids.

Some times a big round ship is just a big round ship.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:13 pm**

Robroy wrote:
Greyaxe wrote:
Anthar wrote:
Braden Campbell wrote:
DhAkael wrote:-ahem-
Berzerkers, Fred Saberhagen..ummmm..circa 1968? when they first came out in short stories?
Moon to planet sized killer robots able to wipe out entire solar systems by themselves.
usualy described as giant globes.

Exactly where homage comes from

And where does the three beams of energy that come fom a massive satellite dish and combine to make an ultra destructo beam come from then?

I haven't read Fleets, but i believe the origional manuscript had the beams operting seperatly for the most part and when fired on a large target like a planet you could calculate greater damage. the fact that it looks exacly like the another well known death dealing star may be a concequence of editing or artistic impression.

If they made it a cube, somebody would say it was a Borg ship. What about the Tangent? Is that a rip off of Stargate. No. it is a extension of planet bound pyramids.

Some times a big round ship is just a big round ship.

Except when its not

In seriousness, what's the big deal? Its big and round, you don't like big and round, decide it is a a doadecahedron if it makes you happy.
-Matt

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:38 pm**

azazel1024 wrote:
Braden Campbell wrote:
azazel1024 wrote: I really want ship constuction rules A La AU:GG (but for PW, and a set that works cohesively and with canon ships, at least more or less with canon ships).
-Matt

Yeah... best of luck with that.
I spent an entire weekend during the writing of Fleets trying to come up with just such a thing, and do you know what I discovered? That the established Phase World ships at that time had not been built with any rhyme or reason. There was no formula to decipher, no way to create a set of ship building rules that would also be able to create the ships that had already been established. So, in line with my belief that gaming should be more about the game than about a bunch of mathematics and record keeping, I went the other way, and said that you should just use the established ships as a guide or template, and then modify/make news ones based around them.
I'm not saying that such a construction ruleset cannot be done, simply that it was too much work for me to figure out. Also, speaking as a GM, if the system is too complicated, then I'm not going to use it anyway, so there was no further point in me wasting valuable writing time on something I myself would never use.

I sorta came up with the same thing. My idea is more to try to come up with rules that at least hew as close as you can to the established ships in canon. I've also tried coming up with rules and a lot of ships were pretty far off. The closest I could come was different rules for different classes plus different tech levels allowed more space for ship modules, better modules etc, with the likes of say the CCW and Kreeghor having one of the higher levels and places like UWW having a low tech level and high magic level.
-Matt

not really phaseworld, but a story of warning. when Battletech first created stats for Warships (combat jumpships, as they were known prior to then), they didn't have a construction system for anything bigger than a fighter. everything bigger than 100 tons (small craft, dropships, jumpships, warships, space stations) were stated out on the "invent some stats that sound good" principle. then they decided to revise their rules, and include a construction system for those bigger craft. and they eventually did so, and made it work without significantly changing the stats (just some minor tweaks as a result of a changed rule or two). the problem? because they'd already established tonnages, armor, and weapons before, the resulting construction system had some very bizzare results. in order to allow the dropships to carry the weapons they did and the armor they and have the thrust and fuel they did...they had to set values a certain way. the results of that for the warships meant that nearly all of them had cargo capacities in excess of 50% of their mass. if loaded just with spare parts, food, and fuel, manyof these ships could operate for centuries without resupply. rather absurd. nor could they alter the armor and gun masses for the large naval guns, because a few of the warships had been so heavily armed that they could barely fit it all in (those few ships with basically 0 cargo..)

eventually they gave up, and found something "good enough". but those ships remain, to this day, some of the more maligned ships..even their fans say they suck. and they do suck, since the ships built with the new construction system are far better designed, and much more capable in nearly all respects. despite being officially "less advanced" than those predecessors.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:03 pm**

A case of the cart before the horse, but I guess after reading things like Battletech (I am all to familar with their chaotic and painful ship construction system and how it evolved), I would have created a system and then used it for making ships for my books. Even if I never published the system or published it much later, that way everything stayed pretty self consistent.

That said, even though it makes it complex and lengthy, ships within relatively board classes are consistent enough in PW that I think you could manage a ship construction system okay. You'd just need one for fighter (<100t), shuttle/patrol ship (<1,000t), small ship (<20,000t), medium ship (<1m ton) and large ship classes (>1m ton), or at least tweaks on each one to make them fit with the others and mostly with existing canon ships. Nothing is ever perfect, especially when a set of rules aren't used from the start, but c'est la vie. I think a lot could still be done to make it work pretty well.
-Matt

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:38 pm**

Haven't picked up Aliens Unlimited: Galaxy Guide yet, but I did find some rules in my copy of Rifts: Manhunter. Since PB licensed Rifts to Myrmidon, rather then Myrmidon licensing Manhunter to PB, I assume that any conversion won't cause any legal entanglements.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:27 am**

azazel1024 wrote:Someone mentioned they are actually working on ship construction rules. I am probably wrong, but I think it was Galacticus Kid (it was deffinitely one of the freelancers).

That is probably my most inticipated PW book.

No offense Braden, Fleets was great and I am really, really looking forward to Thundercloud Galaxy, and Carl Dimensional Outbreak, and heck all of them, but I really want ship constuction rules A La AU:GG (but for PW, and a set that works cohesively and with canon ships, at least more or less with canon ships).
-Matt

It was Warwolf...Mark Oberle.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:51 pm**

personally, i don't want construction rules. i don't think that you can make a system that not only can "reverse engineer" the existing ships, and handle the extensively varied technological bases of phaseworld.
i look at the mess that is battletech's construction system, and i think "and this is a system handling ships all built using the same technological base, at the same technological levels, with the same basic limits on construction and design."
but phase world isn't all the same in those ragards. the technological base is all over the place. you have a bunch of different approaches to technology in the main powers alone, you have technological levels that run from "macguyver built our ships from scrap" all the way up to "so advanced it might as well be magic", with "our ships are magic as a third extreme in the two extreme "high/low" spectrum. and look at construction? the UWW rivits their ships together. the CCW uses 'normal' shipbuilding. the TGE ships are partly built around an organic hull (that mollusk shell.) the Necrol are outright biological, the Intruders ships are just energy, lets not even get into some of the weirder races!
i don't think you can make a system that handles all of these without either having so many gaps, holes, and flubs you might as well just make it up in the first place, or adding so many rules, restrictions, exceptions, and so on that your creativity is increadibly limited.

i'd much prefer to stick to haveing guidelines, and using common sense.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:52 pm**

glitterboy2098 wrote:personally, i don't want construction rules. i don't think that you can make a system that not only can "reverse engineer" the existing ships, and handle the extensively varied technological bases of phaseworld.
i look at the mess that is battletech's construction system, and i think "and this is a system handling ships all built using the same technological base, at the same technological levels, with the same basic limits on construction and design."
but phase world isn't all the same in those ragards. the technological base is all over the place. you have a bunch of different approaches to technology in the main powers alone, you have technological levels that run from "macguyver built our ships from scrap" all the way up to "so advanced it might as well be magic", with "our ships are magic as a third extreme in the two extreme "high/low" spectrum. and look at construction? the UWW rivits their ships together. the CCW uses 'normal' shipbuilding. the TGE ships are partly built around an organic hull (that mollusk shell.) the Necrol are outright biological, the Intruders ships are just energy, lets not even get into some of the weirder races!
i don't think you can make a system that handles all of these without either having so many gaps, holes, and flubs you might as well just make it up in the first place, or adding so many rules, restrictions, exceptions, and so on that your creativity is increadibly limited.

i'd much prefer to stick to haveing guidelines, and using common sense.

Agreed

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:09 pm**

glitterboy2098 wrote:personally, i don't want construction rules. i don't think that you can make a system that not only can "reverse engineer" the existing ships, and handle the extensively varied technological bases of phaseworld.
i look at the mess that is battletech's construction system, and i think "and this is a system handling ships all built using the same technological base, at the same technological levels, with the same basic limits on construction and design."
but phase world isn't all the same in those ragards. the technological base is all over the place. you have a bunch of different approaches to technology in the main powers alone, you have technological levels that run from "macguyver built our ships from scrap" all the way up to "so advanced it might as well be magic", with "our ships are magic as a third extreme in the two extreme "high/low" spectrum. and look at construction? the UWW rivits their ships together. the CCW uses 'normal' shipbuilding. the TGE ships are partly built around an organic hull (that mollusk shell.) the Necrol are outright biological, the Intruders ships are just energy, lets not even get into some of the weirder races!
i don't think you can make a system that handles all of these without either having so many gaps, holes, and flubs you might as well just make it up in the first place, or adding so many rules, restrictions, exceptions, and so on that your creativity is increadibly limited.

i'd much prefer to stick to haveing guidelines, and using common sense.

I'd actually take this as a challenge if I were doing them.

I have some ideas on ship construction rules, but it would not include TW. I was even thinking of taking it as far as including rules on power management. But this will have to wait if I even do it. Another freelancer has expressed an interest in doing starship construction rules and his ideas were pretty sound. I hope he succeeds in getting it into print which means I won't have to do it

Carl

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:56 am**

The only thing I want are (better) price listings for ship components. A massive selection of STL/FTL engines, sensor packages, armour plating,energy weapons, railguns, point defense systems, computer banks, lifesupport, ya know the whole works

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:11 am**

Yeah I still want to see them.

Within reason you'd probably have to have exclusions. Maybe you leave out the organic ships, maybe even TW ships as well.

Heck, maybe you want to make it really finely targeted. Maybe in a Naruni book you have a section on Naruni's custom ship building business. You can make it pretty targeted with that. Only Naruni accessible technology that they'd build a civilian/military open market ship with.

No worried about TW, no worried about organic ship building, etc, etc.

I am sure some people want rules on how to build any conceivable ship. Frankly I just want to see something that represents what an individual or small company could likely get built for them if they went to a shipyard and ordered up a ship. Not something the Necron might grow that isn't listed in the books, or making a custom ship for the CCW, TGE, etc. Of course not every ship those powers posess is listed out yet (or might ever be listed), but frankly the books can list those.

Like modern times the US Navy might have 40-60 different ship types, well the civilian boat building industry probably builds something over 1,000 different ship models not including custom orders which probably amounts to at least as many again 'ship models'.

Same thing to me. The books can take care off all of the national and major corporate ships, and even the most popular civilian/mercenary/pirate ships, but it would also be nice to see some ship yard rules (Naruni, or other). Eventually. Its not really ruining my life not having any right now. It would just be nice eventually.
-Matt

PS Heck as a thought why is anyone going to try a unified ship building rule set. Like I said about variations on rules for different sizes, why not have completely different rule sets. Maybe someone wants to tackle General Galactics Custom Starfighter construction shipyard rules (0-100t), maybe later someone wants to take on Naruni's small ship construction rules (101-1,000t) and maybe in a future book there are Bushido merchant vessel construction rules (1,001-10,000t). There just might never be construction rules for the really big ships, and that's fine. With the exception of someone like Thraxis and a handful of others, there are no private individuals, small companies or mercenary organizations (except the really huge ones) that can afford to custom build anything bigger then a modest sized vessel.

Posted: **Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:04 pm**

What do you think is missing from Fleets that you hope will be put into the other G3,s ships books?

Posted: **Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:07 pm**

For small personal ship construction, I suggest using AU: GG, Manhunter, Or perhaps using the Tracer article in the Rifter, Issue 34.

It's not just Tracers that have their own ships, much less modified ships.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:33 pm**

Khanibal wrote:But, I LIKE number crunching.

Spacemaster.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:47 pm**

Greyaxe wrote:
Khanibal wrote:But, I LIKE number crunching.

Spacemaster.

NO thats called evil torture not number crunching

Forums of the Megaverse®

Fleets of the Galaxies

Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies

Re: Fleets of the Galaxies