Hans Rancke_Madsen:
>>A third way: increase the size of each ship. Under standard rules, a
>>5000 ton free trader would require a crew of four. If all ships were
>>built to the limit of their controls, each ship would be much bigger,
>>and there would be both fewer ships, and less disparity between small
>>ships and large ones.
>
>Don't you think that player-sized starships are expensive
>enough already?
They sure are. That's why Cynthia and I have been re-writing the rules
to lower ship prices. However, it doesn't really matter how much the
ship costs, if it will pay for itself. BUsinesses do not tie up capital
in new purchases. They BORROW the entire amount, with the new purchase
as collateral. So your PCs have to borrow MCr3000, instead of MCr30.
If the ship makes a profit, it will be no problem.
Seriously, I doubt that you should design piracy around the assumption
that the average pirate is as small as a PC's ship. The average pirate
should be 10-50 times as big as a PC's ship. If it were smaller, it
couldn't survive when the Navy came after it (It probably won't anyway,
but that is another problem...). A pirate ship should be converted from
a bulk hauler (Hercules class (5000t), World class (3000t), Leviathon
class (1800t)). That way you get enough ship to do the job. Face it,
the pirate probably has to steal the ship anyway. So he'll steal a good
one.
>>TCS ignores crew salaries by making maintenance costs 100 times as
>>high as standard MT. The extra 99x represents the costs of crews,
>>bases, training centers, recruiting posters, etc.
>
>There's something wrong with the economy then. If it cost your entire
>naval budget just to run the fleet you have, how do you pay for repairs
>and replacements?
Reread TCS. That is the assumption about the MAXIMUM Navy size. If you
need newer ships, decommission some of the old ones. Or maintain your
Navy at less than full size. Note also that the Budget multiplier goes
UP in wartime. So you can afford to buy some new stuff then.
In the Real World, the size of the military establishment is at the
maximum that the budget allows. When the budget goes up, buy new ships,
raise new regiments. When it drops, mothball ships and retire
regiments.
>>Not totally unreasonable. Not in accord with MT definition of
>>Inertial compensators, either... Even so, it is a trivial addition to
>>the cost of a ship. For example, a 100,000 ton TL15 cruiser (snatched
>>at random from "shattered ships..") would cost an extra MCr337.5 (to
>>as much as MCr 1687.5 for a six-G ship) out of a total cost of
>>MCr397,217. An increase of 0.085% to total cost. Who cares?
>
>You're looking at it the wrong way round. By making that ship
>MCrimp 1687.5 more expensive I've just cost the navy 10 patrol
>cruisers - 20 if we also use my extra durability rule. Still,
>you're right that's it's not enough in itself. Which is why I
>asked for help. Bertil's already come up with some good stuff.
>But as for trivial, every little bit helps :-)
Actually, we'll knock back 10 either way. Presumably the patrol
cruisers will be built that way too.
As to the "every little bit helps" assertion, that's true. But since
you can buy 2400+ patrol cruisers for every Heavy cruiser, the Navy can
still have as many as before. They'll build fewer major warships, but
little stuff is easier to sneak onto the budget, so the little stuff
will be unaffected.
>>Nonetheless, this is MT's picture. Try FFW (Fifth Frontier War)
>>sometime. Imperial ships DON'T fight that far from their bases.
>
>Except when GDW conviniently forgets that and lets Terran Confederation
>fleets penetrate to Vland and Aslan ihatei attack Aki. Naval ships
>don't _like_ to fight far from a base - who would - but it's not
>unreasonable to suppose that the various admiralties would plan for it.
GDW has always had consistency problems. I doubt that they would bother
to. Notice that before WW2, NOBODY did any serious planning about
operations far from bases. That's why the major powers had Treaty Bases
scattered all over the world. That's also why Hitler lost the Battle of
Britain - his planes were designed to operate within a hundred miles of
their fields, and suffered when they had to go as far as England.
>>Besides, improvements such as you suggest would make those annoying
>>Naval vessels only about half as numerous, and twice as ubiquitous.
>>If they could cruise that far from their bases, they.d be EVERYWHERE!
>
>Not true. Ordinary patrols don't go on 5 year patrols under the present
>system, true. But they don't go on 1 year patrols either. They move
>about in a 2-3 month circuit ending up where they started out. So at
>the moment they're only out of the running 2 weeks in every 52. The
>same would apply if they had a potential 5 year cruising range. But
>there would only be half as many.
Not true. Some Batrons and Crurons hit their bases about once a year.
Specifically those operating in the Trojan Reaches and Five Sisters and
Jewell. Imperial Navy ships in the Marches and Reaches only have FOUR
worlds that can maintain them (Mora, Trin, Glisten, Rhylanor). And none
are especially close to those operating areas. Sure, they stop at some
Navy base every few months, but they don't stop where they need to get
maintenance that often. If they did, the Impy Navy would NEVER GET TO
JEWELL. It takes three months just to get there from Rhylanor, much
less back home for maintenance.
>Well, for one thing my rule is wonderfully simple. Just add umpteen
f*>percent to the price. And easy to implement: Just extend the time
>allowed between overhauls by one year per 25% extra paid and
>make the overhaul last two weeks per year since the last one.
Do you want your PCs doing this too? Never allow an element into a game
unless you prepared to let your PCs acquire (read:steal) it.
BTW, It doesn't bother me at all. I like exploration adventures anyway,
and your system would make the mission (presently being planned) beyond
the Consulate MUCH easier. The PCs doing the mission have plenty of
money. That's as good a way as any to spend some of it.
>>That would still leave 100,000 + naval vessels out there cluttering up
>>the Imperium, and getting in everyone else's way.
>
>Right, so we need something more. Why does everybody seem to assume
>that we can only use one fix on this very serious problem?
I don't. But the more complex the solution, the less likely it is to be
implemented. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) applies. If you waste time
looking at partial solutions that raise the price a percent or two,
you'll start to look like the Gentlemen (I use the word with
reservations) in Congress (USA, of course). They tackle the budget
deficit every year. They trim back $50million here and there, and are
proud of themselves. Of course, the deficit is measured in tens (or
hundreds) of BILLIONS, but they've saved us $50,000,000 and should be
patted on the back for DEALING WITH THAT OLD BUDGET PROBLEM.
Look for REALLY MAJOR ways of cutting things back! If it doesn't cut
out 75% of the Navy, then you are not thinking big enough. Cut Taxes!
Have the Navy waste A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY doing research into
disintegrators/proton beams/antimatter systems. Use research programs
as holes to throw money into. Start a program to refurbish all
howevermany Depots up to TL16 standards, with yard facilities equivalent
to Trin's. Look at the problem as if you were a Congressman form
Nevada, and you wanted as much as possible of the Naval budget spent in
your district. D@#! the Navy. My constituents need jobs!
>So at least my extra durability suggestion is not all that
>unreasonable.
>
>(Btw. what's a Boomer?)
A Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine. Specifically, the cycle I
described is that for a SSBN-640 class boomer. (I was on SSBN-642 USS
Kamehameha).
No, the extra durability suggestion is not unreasonable. Possibly
unnecessary, but not unreasonable.
Later...
- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b
[email removed]
I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
--W. von Braun