Power Factors , GMG & Starships Power Plant Output in Spaceships & Vehicles
SonarTom Jan 11 2018, 17:56 Group: Heroes, Level 12 Quote Post
Hello all,

I am trying to figure out the power plant instructions using the information in Gamemaster Guide (GMG) TSR 2801 1st Printing May 1998 Power systems pp. 141-144 and Starships TSR 11319 1999 Table S10 pp. 40-41, text on pp. 43-46, and the sample designs on pp. 64-95. Unfortunately, the only one I think I have down is the Solar Cells.

I tried searching on the forum and as usual my search criteria either returned no results, results that did not fit the criteria, or to many returns that my quick checks did not find an answer.

My apologies if there is an answer on the forum and here goes my attempt at figuring out if I'm even in the right universe on how to determine the cost, durability, and power factor beyond the base power plant.

The Centauri Devastator, Starships p. 94, has the following specifications:

Power: Dynamic Mass Reactors rated for 24 power factors

Compartment Engineering 1: Dynamic Mass Reactor (4/*) Dur 10/10/5
Compartment Auxiliary: Dynamic Mass Reactor (4/*) Dur 8/8/4

Looking at Starships Table S10 p. 41 a PL 8 Dynamic Mass Reactor has a Durability of 1 and outputs 3 power factors. I believe that the information presented means that that this type of power plant has a minimum of 1 durability point that has a minimum output of 3 power factors per unit.

If I've got this right the Dynamic Mass Reactor in Engineering 1 has a Durability of 5 which equates to 5 x 3 = 15 power factors and a cost of 5 x 300,000 = 1,500,000. While the Dynamic Mass Reactor in the Auxiliary compartment appears to have an output of Durability 4 x 3 = 12 power factors and has a cost of Durability 4 x 300,000 = 1,200,000.

Am I even close to being correct in my understanding of how power is generated?

cobalt_phoenix Jan 11 2018, 21:33 Group: Heroes, Beyond Level 20 Quote Post
Author
I am trying to figure out the power plant instructions using the information in Gamemaster Guide


Let me see if I can help.


Author
The Centauri Devastator, Starships p. 94, has the following specifications:

Power: Dynamic Mass Reactors rated for 24 power factors

Compartment Engineering 1: Dynamic Mass Reactor (4/*) Dur 10/10/5
Compartment Auxiliary: Dynamic Mass Reactor (4/*) Dur 8/8/4

Looking at Starships Table S10 p. 41 a PL 8 Dynamic Mass Reactor has a Durability of 1 and outputs 3 power factors. I believe that the information presented means that that this type of power plant has a minimum of 1 durability point that has a minimum output of 3 power factors per unit.

If I've got this right the Dynamic Mass Reactor in Engineering 1 has a Durability of 5 which equates to 5 x 3 = 15 power factors and a cost of 5 x 300,000 = 1,500,000. While the Dynamic Mass Reactor in the Auxiliary compartment appears to have an output of Durability 4 x 3 = 12 power factors and has a cost of Durability 4 x 300,000 = 1,200,000.

Am I even close to being correct in my understanding of how power is generated?



Okay, in general, the power systems and engines under the GMG/Starships system are a straight point-buy. You buy a single system for x durability, producing y power, and costing z dollars. The same is true for every system presented in the GMG/Starships build system (a plasma cannon always has the same size, cost, and power demands).

For example, the dynamic mass reactor. A single dynamic mass reactor takes up 1 durability point, produces 3 power factors, and costs $300,000. Since that actually isn't much power, most ships will need more, so you buy more, at the same cost in durability and money while producing the same amount of power factors. Two dynamic mass reactors cost a total of 2 durability points, produces 6 power factors, and costs $600,000.

What they basically did with the Centauri Devastator was to just lump them together. Rather than 8 small reactors producing 3 power factors each, there are instead 2 larger reactors producing 12 power factors each. The totals for power, durability, and monetary costs are the same (8 durability, 24 power factors, and $2.4 million, respectively).

Where the difference, however, lies is in the likelihood of damage to the system. If you look at the compartment/system layout on page 94, you see one column marked as "Roll". When the ship takes damage, you use that column to determine which compartment was hit and what systems are vulnerable to system failure or outright destruction.

Basically, larger reactors are going to be more robust, just like larger systems. It takes more damage to destroy them (and since reactors explode when they are destroyed, there is a benefit to increasing their size by lumping them together). Of course, you could lump all 8 durability points or reactor into a single unit, but there is a risk to that, too (if it is knocked out, the ship is dead).
Guardian Jan 12 2018, 03:14 Group: Heroes, WarHulk AI Quote Post
Related to that, you'll notice the DMRs are in separate compartments, which are separate damage locations. That way, a hit on one compartment won't compromise everything (unlike if you have them in the same room, as damage overflow would spread form one DMR to the other easily).

Some pieces of equipment, however, are easier to keep together as one installation, as the loss of any part immediately wrecks the entire status effect (deflection inducers come to mind).
SonarTom Jan 12 2018, 04:29 Group: Heroes, Level 12 Quote Post
Evening from WA CP and Guardian,

Thank you both for the help.

When I first saw that the Dynamic Mass Reactors are rated for 24 power factors my first guess was that there were 8 DMR units. Looking the table and saw that there are two listings for the DMRs which is why I asked if I was on the right track.

Looks like the number of DMRs split between Engineering 1 and the Auxiliary compartments has a small mistake since the 5 DMRs in Engineering 1 + the 4 in Auxiliary compartment = 9 versus the 8 to get 24 Power Factors.

In short CP your explanation did help so thank you for your input.

One of the dislikes I have with other game systems design rules is that many of them do not allow having more than one power plant or if they do the other plants cannot be used as a back the main power plant. I agree with you Guardian that having multiple systems is different locations is a great idea.

Thank you both for the comments.
Guardian Jan 12 2018, 04:39 Group: Heroes, WarHulk AI Quote Post
For the record, the guy who wrote Warships (Rich Baker) is (well, was now) a carded SWO. So a lot of his design principles follow USN policy.
SonarTom Jan 13 2018, 04:00 Group: Heroes, Level 12 Quote Post
Hello Guardain,

Author (Guardian @ Jan 12 2018, 04:39)
For the record, the guy who wrote Warships (Rich Baker) is (well, was now) a carded SWO. So a lot of his design principles follow USN policy.


As mentioned earlier I'm a retired boat (submarine) sailor on four boat (3 SSBNs and 1 SSN) and a forward deployed submarine tender to the Med. After getting out and digging into various game ship design rules I stumbled upon the USN habitability criteria which can be found at http://www.habitability.net/.

Hopefully I can verify if the Surface Warfare Officer followed that portion of USN policy.

Thank you for the heads up.




Reply to this topic Start new topic Start Poll

Topic Options

AlternityRPG.Net
Help Search