|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 23, 2004 9:41:04 GMT -5
The point I want to emphasise is that in 40K the Imperium has a very strict control over warp travel as the warp is a very dangerous place. This point is highly over-emphasised and creates a strictly "every world is a castle" approach which we will not be adopting. Warp travel is dangerous for a number of reasons, not just the fact that people get 'lost' if they don't have a navigator (this is why I strenuously disagree with your numbers). Calculated jumps are possible and the creation of averages suggests that they are more common. Rather navigators are the rare thing and give the Imperium a significant tactical advantage along with many of the other aspects of 'superluminal society', i.e. the Astropathic Network. I'm not saying that every (wo)man and their dog has a warp-capable ship, but they are a tad more common than the above is often used to suggest. Rather, control is maintained in other ways: charters (flight plans, in essence) determining route and/or estimated times, the fact that cerain high tech components require adeptus mechanicus repair, the limitation of 'speed' because of the expense of hiring Navigators, etc. The 'Unrecognised' bit in the GURPS conversion table was to make a point that GURPS doesn't have that type of technology in their tech level system. Fair enough. But that really does depend on how you see things operationg. I personally utilise magic as pyskers, as discussed elsewhere, since it is the best fit without having to make up a dubious system. In this case you are entirely right, there are no tech-levels and a means of representing this would be useful... It is, however, essentially 'enchantment' through technological means. The question is how normal enchantment costs are replicated in terms of artefact price, etc. On the other hand, if you're a psionicist favourite then various "psibertech" (<yawn>) is incorporated into the TL scheme rather than creating a distinct series... So far your arguments against the concepts I have put forward seems to boils down to: 'I don't like it'. That would be the very essence of it, yes, though more a "I don't like it as it stands". The TL system was there to give an idea of the kind of artefacts that can be 'found' upon the world without predicating society: there are numerous points where yours is dependent upon a certain level of social evolution (i.e. "Rise of the Artisans", "Industrial Revolution") that is distinct from technology, at least in some regards. That is the weakness of it regardless of where it is going to be used... It might suit 40k but only because of simplistic assumptions about society. Furthermore, you will note that I suggested that it would make a useful 'colour text' but in the creation of worlds and the guidelines therein it is not as useful. I would like these 'concept' threads to be for the 'brainstorming' of concepts and how they would play out, and ultimately link together. Perhaps you should ensure that this is mentioned early on in each thread. And if it isn't then you don't have to make it 'conform' to GURPS. Again, the TL system is there as a guideline to offer a framework of interpretation. Your 'system' as an overlay isn't really required except that it might aid to give people understanding roughly where the technology links in with the real world since, after all, it is a fairly abstract system. That is the strength even though it makes certain cultural assumptions (some of which are valid, some not). The 40K fluff is deliberately 'contradictory'. I would like to design a 'base concept' of 40K were all the 'fluff' becomes 'interpretations' of the base concept, but the base concept has to hold together. We all do that. For the most part some of the chances that you've made don't suit how I interpret it, so there's no surprise that a clash is going to result. (E.g. nRobots, 'bubble theory' as described, etc.) Therefore the concepts I'm putting forward are designed specifically to fit 40K and is my attempt to explain why the universe of 40K looks and feels the way it does. Some things fit, some things don't... but again, it's a matter of interpretation. (Referencing your eldar concept sketch which reinterpreted them to your conceptualisation of what is 'graceful' even when such a change was not necessary and un-canonical. Of course, I don't have a leg to stand on in this regard!) I don't want 40K to become another 'generic' universe... I think it is a unique environment and consistency should be aimed for.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 24, 2004 8:28:41 GMT -5
=Warp Travel= I really like the idea that the warp is dangerous, if you look at all of my 'concept threads' they're all linked together, and many are aimed at reducing warp travel to a minimum.
The STCS:CS cuts out a huge amount warp travel as it virtually removes 'food distribution' from the Imperial set-up.
Warp travel should be a 'dark art' rather than 'common' public transport. Just as people are scared of flying in our world, they should be absolutely terrified of warp travel in 40K (superstition surrounding warp travel should be 'extreme'). People coming out of a warp jump should have gone through hell: horrific nightmare, psychosis (convinced their soul has been lost etc.), behavioural shifts etc.
=nRobot= These are just my version of the 'Iron Men' and most of their strength and indestructibility came from the 'mundane' materials used to make them rather than the powerfields. The powerfields were they to allow complex chemical reacts equivalent of 'life' to form.
I figured (recently) that iron was unusual in that once it had gone through a specific type of field it structure retained its 'shifted' state. This allows a robotic form of DNA to be built.
=Social evolution= Yes it is very simplistic. It basically is defining the level of society that can produce an artefact of a given tech level.
It is really trying to pinpoint the radical concepts needed for that change in social set-up to occur. As you have so eloquently put there was no 'industrial revolution', what I am alluding to is that from that time period 'standard systems and measures' were introduced. For example a No6 screw is the same from two different manufactures, whereas artisans would make two different custom screws (in one off sets). This standardisation is at the heart of what is often referred to as 'industrial revolution' and lead to machines (or aloud machines to be realised).
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 24, 2004 8:52:56 GMT -5
=Warp Travel=I really like the idea that the warp is dangerous, if you look at all of my 'concept threads' they're all linked together, and many are aimed at reducing warp travel to a minimum. Warp travel is dangerous, just like in the 'Age of Sail' sea travel was dangerous. In fact, it still is dangerous... I disagree wholeheartedly that warp travel is, however, essentially the same as playing Russian Roulette with a revolver with five bullets in it or, taking it to extremes, a semi-automatic with any bullets in it. That is not to say that it is 'public transportation', though the public do use it for transportation. At present Battlefleet Anargo is somewhere in the realms of, erm, 111 warp-capable ships. I'm not entirely certain on what numbers I would comfortable advocate for the Merchant Fleet of Anargo, but the Civilan Fleet is something that I would guestimate as being in the realms of 500 odd ships... The STCS:CS cuts out a huge amount warp travel as it virtually removes 'food distribution' from the Imperial set-up. And cuts out the point of hiveworlds in the first place, which admittedly are a daft thing anyway. Then again, as I've pointed out numerous times I don't agree with your G/DAoT logic in their formation in the first place. they should be absolutely terrified of warp travel in 40K (superstition surrounding warp travel should be 'extreme'). They are, and I agree... but that doesn't mean that 'you the reader' has to buy into this. People coming out of a warp jump should have gone through hell: horrific nightmare, psychosis (convinced their soul has been lost etc.), behavioural shifts etc. One cannot help but think of the concept of "old sea dogs". The powerfields were they to allow complex chemical reacts equivalent of 'life' to form. Unnecessary... and once more if you're going to use magic, don't try and couch it up!
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Aug 24, 2004 9:05:38 GMT -5
;DIt's always a joy to cross blades with you kage Ah but there was a point at which we kicked mother nature in the face and told her to sling her hook. The Idusrial revolution was the turning of natural into manmade, man made stone, metal, power. True much of the tech that was part of the IR had been around for a while but it was the putting together of all these disparete elements that constituted the revolution, and yes i't didn't happen overnight but who said it has to. It was all part of the steam age which wouldn't have been possible without the iron age and the secret of steel and other alloys, which in turn wouldn't have happened without the bronze age and the discovery of metal and the art of smelting which wouldn't have been possible witout the stoneage and the manipulation of natural resources for tools to dig. What you are describing is not so much the revoution but evolution :)You see what i did there, clever huh With respect, the industrial revolution wasn't about technology at all - it was about money and social change. As you say, it was about integrating existing technologies - or in other words, it was some bright sod looking at technology A, technology B, technology C and business practice D and realizing that if you combined A,B,and C, you could do away with D (and cut an entire existing industry or social class out of the profit loop), introduce business models E-F and make a bloody fortune.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 24, 2004 9:28:53 GMT -5
Warp travel is dangerous, just like in the 'Age of Sail' sea travel was dangerous. In fact, it still is dangerous... Warp travel should be more like the film 'Event Horizon' (reminded of this film when posting at BL forums) and a lots less like 'Lost in Space' (ik) and definitely not anything like Star trek/wars. I'm not saying it Russian Roulette! That's unfair: with a navigator I put the odds of 'disappearing' at 0.01%, that's a revolver with 10,000 chambers and a single *shiny* bullet (isn't that safer than rail travel?). Could always knock it down to 0.001%? 500 ships, holy cow! As for Hives they make perfect sense, its all in the draft I sent you. True, but with a bit of empathy: if I was in their shoes... Old sea dogs where insane. Hay, it seemed like a nice idea to make a totally artificial lifeform.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 24, 2004 10:10:10 GMT -5
Warp travel should be more like the film 'Event Horizon' (reminded of this film when posting at BL forums) and a lots less like 'Lost in Space' (ik) and definitely not anything like Star trek/wars. That's your interpretation. Event Horizon was a film with one ship. Read it: one ship. That's like determining an entire theory upon one measely scrap of evidence. In short... No. I'm not saying it Russian Roulette! That's unfair: with a navigator I put the odds of 'disappearing' at 0.01%, that's a revolver with 10,000 chambers and a single *shiny* bullet (isn't that safer than rail travel?). Could always knock it down to 0.001%? That's the point: you overstress the use of the Navigators. You make them, in essence, necessary. We will be working on the principle that they are necessary to the Imperium, that they are necessary for long-distance journeys, but on the short runs they are not necessary. Not only is that a part of the 'fluff' despite some of the colour 'text' but, well, I prefer it. And I'm afraid that has a bit of weight. Small ones. Iddy biddy little ships, although CELS is still adamaent that the smallest ship be some 3000 t d. As for Hives they make perfect sense, its all in the draft I sent you. If it's anything like your posts here, then I'm afraid that the origins are still not going to make any sense to me. True, but with a bit of empathy: if I was in their shoes... I can readily imagine how 'common' people might view it. I'm just not going to over-buy into it. It's like the difference between game mechanics and narrative/background. I wouldn't want something like an avowed 'fear' of the warp predicated upon propaganda and the "tales of sailors" to determine the mechanics. I would keep it as 'fluff' and then consider just exactly was to be done with it in terms of the mechanics. Imagery has its place, but it is not the sum total of things. Old sea dogs where insane. "Only the insane have strength enough to prosper; only those that prosper truly judge what is sane." A fear of the warp in the 'common populace' is not going to translate to calculated warp jumps being a crap shoot. Hay, it seemed like a nice idea to make a totally artificial lifeform. Oh, I don't mind that... it's just the magic fields that aren't magic fields.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 24, 2004 10:44:56 GMT -5
That's your interpretation. Event Horizon was a film with one ship. Read it: one ship. That's like determining an entire theory upon one measely scrap of evidence. In short... No. ? I'm not determining a theory based on the film, I was referring to the 'look and feel' and the effect it had on people. I'm using it as an example of the direction I prefer to go in, and as there are very few films similar to 40K in character, I picked this as the 'best of the bunch' to illustrate my point. No I didn't. You can make a 'calculated jump' it's just more dangerous. It the odds are too high for calculated jumps, what would you suggest? Isn't that what I said. That's the model I'm going for, but more restriction (danger) on those short jumps compared to what I guess is your take. Not that iddy biddy with a warp drive on them! No, I changed it thanks to yours (and others) input, but I did note that you didn't come up with one reason why it wouldn't work - only 'you didn't believe it would work', or you 'didn't like it' full stop. If you made a case (with some facts) I would have redesigned accordingly. I'm still open to suggestion, hence the draft Perhaps a 'fear test' to get on the ship? Yah, and only the insane come up with that (not calling you insane or anything ) Totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 24, 2004 11:01:10 GMT -5
I'm not determining a theory based on the film... My apologies. Was kind of getting into a flow... My bad. I was referring to the 'look and feel' and the effect it had on people. For a daemon-infested ship, yes I'd go for it being suitable. Then again you should check out Wing Commander for capital-ship combat imagery... I'm using it as an example of the direction I prefer to go in... This is not, however, a direction that we'll be going in... Although I do believe that someone in Chaos was playing around with the idea of having a 'daemon ship'... No I didn't. You can make a 'calculated jump' it's just more dangerous. It the odds are too high for calculated jumps, what would you suggest? Leave it to narrative. Determine another reason that Navigators are preferred rather than laying out a horrendously (for me) disproportionate "25% of ships disappear" when making a calculated jump, and another 20% (IIRC) are scattered within x light years... Far, far too much. Merely making them much slower to work and more susceptible to the vagaries of the warp (again a narrative thing) gives the Navigators and 'noble families' (wherever) the advantages that they need without buying too far into "every world is a castle" and "only the Imperium has horses". (I know that it is simple enough to say that the Imperium isn't the only organisation to 'employ' Navigators, but I would still see Navigators as fairly rare... ) Isn't that what I said. That's the model I'm going for, but more restriction (danger) on those short jumps compared to what I guess is your take. Exactly. You seem to be buying overtly into the 'daemon infestation' (or whatever the reason for their loss) approach... and that's not something which is going to be present here. I just really don't like a 40k universe where the Imperium is in control because it must be... I prefer a tad more economics and politics. Not that iddy biddy with a warp drive on them! Please note that the 'fluff' includes warp ships that are really quite small... Here we work with "economically feasible" (hand-waved concept) which balance cost of ship against transport capacity. Specific organisations can, of course, create much smaller ships but they require more maintenance thus greater overheads, etc. only 'you didn't believe it would work', or you 'didn't like it' full stop. Quite simply the thing that I didn't believe was the ultimate goal of creating a population dense environment and that there would be a 'standardised' construction throughout the Golden Age. Just didn't work for me. Perhaps a 'fear test' to get on the ship? If you're going on the ship then the chances are that: (a) you don't have any choice, so who cares if you're scared; (b) you've already made the determination to go so will not need the test; or (c) you just turn around and walk away. Either way, it's not going to dramatically impact on things. Yah, and only the insane come up with that (not calling you insane or anything ) Isn't it just a peach.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 24, 2004 11:32:21 GMT -5
My apologies. Was kind of getting into a flow... My bad. Ah, no worries. Wing Commander, I'll have a look. Thanks. Just direction, ie more EH than Startrek. I don't think Event Horizon is a 100% fit (more like 30%) The formula was; Disappearance % = LY² Random exits % = LY x 20 Radius = LY² x 2. So a one light year jump only has a 1% chance of vanishing, and a 20% chance of going walk about. Where as a ten light year jump has a 100% chance of vanishing. Vanishing, I'm not thinking it is only 'demonic infestation', I also think appearing inside planets (black holes, stars, asteroid fields) is a good way to vanish, as is appearing billions of light years away, or the whole crew being mind wiped and go off somewehere else. Game wise you could lump it all under 'Warp Disaster' table. Having said that, I could change disappear to 'warp disaster'? I see them a reasonably uncomman, but I also think warp travel isn't 'routine'. The Imperium is in control because it has a strangle hold (this is all according to my concepts btw ) on technology via the Adeptus Machanicus and Navigators. Small ones are like sports cars, not station wagons. A small warp ship is like using a Ferrari to transport goods, it is much better to use a van (most vans has less horse power than a Ferrari). Just doesn't work for you? why?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 24, 2004 12:04:04 GMT -5
Just direction, ie more EH than Startrek. I don't think Event Horizon is a 100% fit (more like 30%) Well is it really a direction? It's just a story of what might happen. So a one light year jump only has a 1% chance of vanishing, and a 20% chance of going walk about. Yes, but 'walk about' with light years? On a purely RPG side of things it would be best to link these to the 'skills' of computers anway and then leave it to the GM... With that said, the provision of a more reasonable "suggestions" table might be useful. Again, though, squaring the jump distance just doesn't work for me... It's just the "feel" of it. Yes, the precision of the jump should be questionable (with Navigators being more accurate, of course) and yes there should be a chance of something 'nasty' happening to the ship (blanketing with the term 'disappears' doesn't work), but not to those excessive odds. Remember the numbers presented in the 'fluff' state averages which include calculated jumps... As you say, it's a case of interpretation. I see calculated jumps as being the mainstay of communications at the subsector level. You do not need a Navigator to go from Anargo to Tryphon, though economically it would be more feasible to have one going from Anargo to Archiaos. I also think appearing inside planets (black holes, stars, asteroid fields) is a good way to vanish... You're not going to be jumping in close enough to a system to be able to 'vanish' in an asteroid field. And incidentally the above statement reminded me of Star Wars more than anything else. Again it's not a crap shoot but calculations made to go from one point to another... as is appearing billions of light years away, or the whole crew being mind wiped and go off somewehere else. In game terms that is the kind of thing that you would leave solely to narrative. Having said that, I could change disappear to 'warp disaster'? Still too high a percentage. I see them a reasonably uncomman, but I also think warp travel isn't 'routine'. And there we disagree again. I see it as quite common. Not in terms of the relative proportion of the Imperium, just that an average world that is integrated into subsector and sector socio-economy sees a reasonable number of warp ships on a fairly common basis. The Imperium is in control because it has a strangle hold (this is all according to my concepts btw ) on technology via the Adeptus Machanicus and Navigators. And to this I agree. But there's also the difference: you seem to view Navigators as increasingly essential if you want your ship to actually get there (I do not view 1 in 4 ships trying to make a five light year jump as disappearing...) On the bright side I'm actually thinking about this... Small ones are like sports cars, not station wagons. Your assumption again with the predication that 'big is good' in the 40k universe as manifested in over-sized weapons and over-sized ships. Just doesn't work for you? why? That there should be a single unified way of doing something... that there is no expression and/or alteration dependent upon whim... that cramming populations into 'hives' is a good thing to do... etc, etc. And in some part a hazy, hand-waving... "Naaaahhh". The image doesn't appeal. Hiveworlds I can handle because they're a 'cool image', even though I wouldn't imagine them ever getting to that state... But this regimented hive world... Again, Nah.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 24, 2004 12:43:31 GMT -5
Well is it really a direction? It's just a story of what might happen. Yes, but the point I'm making is that it could happen (sort of) in 40K where it isn't going to happen in Starwars. Reduce the distance of wander? Reduce the odds and change 'disappear' to 'warp catastrophe'? Suggestions? group these two quite together. Huge mega ships for transporting cargo with a Navigator, or lots of little ships making lots of little trips. I favour the first, I take it you favour the second? Form an RPG side I can see that lots of little ships work well, but you could always 'stow away' on a big ship? I see Navigators as 'fundamental' to making the Imperium work in the manner it does. Calculated warp jump give too much freedom. No, just that warp engines are big engines. You can stick 'em in a small ship, but it is uneconomical. I see commercial cargo shipped in huge ships carrying billions of tones of cargo, and as the cargo of that quantity is expense the company forks out for a Navigator to make sure it get there (and the Navigator gets a huge fee, supporting their 'Noble lifestyle') Hmm, I have an image of a huge pyramids covered in metallic grey Gothic cathedrals surrounded by a sea of plas-crete tower blocks with even shrines and what-nots on top. As for sticking them all together: cities.
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Aug 24, 2004 14:31:32 GMT -5
Leave it to narrative. Determine another reason that Navigators are preferred rather than laying out a horrendously (for me) disproportionate "25% of ships disappear" when making a calculated jump, and another 20% (IIRC) are scattered within x light years... Far, far too much. Merely making them much slower to work and more susceptible to the vagaries of the warp (again a narrative thing) gives the Navigators and 'noble families' (wherever) the advantages that they need without buying too far into "every world is a castle" and "only the Imperium has horses". (I know that it is simple enough to say that the Imperium isn't the only organisation to 'employ' Navigators, but I would still see Navigators as fairly rare... ) A 25% average loss rate is still going to lead to widespread use of calculated jumps assuming the profit margin on a successful jump is large enough to offset the risks and navigators are sufficiently rare (and thus unattainable or expensive). This of course will be a function of ship construction cost, cargo cost and profitability of merchant shipping. Using the probability for not being lost = 1-(a/b)^n, where (a/b) is the probability of not being lost on a single jump and n is the number of jumps... a loss rate of 1/4 is going to mean that on average a warp capable ship will make only two calculated jumps before being lost. Even a loss rate of only 10% means that nearly 50% of one's merchant fleet will be lost after six jumps. A loss rate of 1% still means a ship has a 50% loss chance after 69 trips. To put it another way, you'd want to generate enough net income after 69 jumps to cover the complete cost of the ship twice over, crew and contents inclusive, to make it worth your while as a merchant shipping concern, or to put it another way, each jump would require a profit margin equal to 2/69 of the ship (and cargo) replacement value.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 24, 2004 22:01:29 GMT -5
Actually, IIRC you'd be wrong on that assumption. I believe that there were 'rogue AI' ships as well as 'dark force infestations' of 'things' at various stages in the RPG history of the universe...
Quite significantly so. Heck, if the ended up at the various extents of the system (i.e. Oort Cloud at 1 light year distance?) they would have to make another warp jump... You wouldn't use anything that inaccurate unless you really had to. And before you say that they have to, remember that the warp drive was operating before the invention of the Navigators and, again, the importance of the Navigators is not going to be defined purely by reference to their importance (i.e. they are important therefore they must be completely necessary).
Ultimately, Navigators are like the Astronomican... useful, but not necessary.
For me? We have a 'warp time' and a 'real time' and the question remains whether they should be linked, but regardless the ranges provided show, for me, the 2-sigma range. What will occur 90% of the time assuming something non-standard (narrative) happening...
In RPG terminology you might represent this as (schematically):
Critical Success - Normal Success - Normal Failure - Critical Failure
Normal success would govern the 'range' of values depending on the level of the success. A 'good' normal success would mean that warp and/or real travel time was at the lower end of the spectrum, while a 'poor' normal success would mean travel time at the upper portion.
Failure would indicate 'trouble'... for the most part this would, for me, be represented as 'low' incidence: damage to the ship and/or crew, significant expansion of travel time, more significant displacement of exit point, etc.
Critical failure is where you're getting into the territory that you're talking about, but even then I would leave 'destruction/disappearance' as a narrative event since basically anything could happen. Otherwise same as the above just, well, more catastrophic. Major damage rather than minor damage, being throw thousands of light years off course, or whatever... The whole 'disappearance' - which you have modified - doesn't cut it.
And of course just how likely all this is dependent on the computers/software that control a calculated jump as well as the 'skill' of the Navigator. Given the 'fluff', however, the only reason that Navigators maintain pre-eminence within the warp is, well, because GW says so. Given the fact that it is possible to view the warp electronically (Inquisitor/Draco) then it should be possible to calibrate within jump... Actually, that might be a lie, it all depends on whether you believe that calculated jumps take longer or not...
Get rid of the graininess...
I use both.
Only in a novel, e.g. an exception to the rule. Problem is that GW uses exceptions to the exceptions as the rule.
The Navigators are part of the 'glue' to keep things together. They allow rapid transportation... While calculated jumps allow more freedom on the micro-scale such is not true outside of a limited set of circumstances. Thus they are limited by their nature and the absence of the Navigator, rather than just the absence of the Navigator.
Hence the smallest ship we're currently allowing is in the range of 3,000 td (or around 150m long). And that would generally included yachts, smaller passenger liners (since it's not that small, etc.)
That kind of thing goes with the Merchant Fleet and for those limited 'cartels' (or whatever) that can afford a ship that expensive.
That's another reason for their rarity...
Not saying that it isn't a cool image, just that overall it doesn't work for me.
Now add the word 'trillions' and the concept that you're designing for this from the start... Again, naah.
Which even on a small ship is going to come to something in the range of 13,043,478 per journey or, assuming strict linearity of cargo capacity on an old example, $869 per cubic metre... A not insignificant price of transported goods...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 24, 2004 23:07:13 GMT -5
=Warp Travel==Base Formula=Incident % = Jump Distance in LY (cubed or squared) divided by method modifier Wander = (Warp incident %) of Jump Distance in LY Changed 'Disappear' to 'incident', which doesn't automatically mean a 'disaster', it could be something minor like 'dropping of of the warp' Now all warp jumps have a slight wander. This wandering increases as the ship nears the upper range of its (/navigators) capabilities. This gives a nice curve where serious wander only happens on extreme jumps, and over relatively short jumps this wander is kept to a minimum. Note: 0.01% of a light year is still quite a long way. May further divide the wander distance by a 1000 or more. These changes combine to make warp travel 'safer' and a little more sable, but if a ship's captain pushes it, there will be problems. =Incidents=80% of ships just drop out of the warp somewhere along the route, may re-jump. 14% of incidents result in the ship being damaged in some minor way, may drop out of the warp. 3% of incidents result in critical damage to the ship and a 'random exit' and is 'dead in the water'. 1% of all incidents result in something very strange (narrative: daemonic possession?). 1% of ships involved in an incident simply 'disappear' (via 'dead pool' ). =Calculated Jumps=LY Cubed Incident % = LY3/mod=Calculated First missions=Incident % = LY 3=Calculated Early travel=Incident % = LY 3/10 =Calculated 'STC'=Incident % = LY 3/100 [100 is the average, range 50-200] - 1 LYJ=0.01%
- 5 LYJ=1.25%
- 10 LYJ=10%
- 20LYJ=80%)
Natural cut off point safety wise is around 5LY fro a 'calculated jump'=Navigator Jumps=LY squared Incident % = LY2/mod=Navigator 'Basic'=Incident % = LY 2/1000 [1000 is the average, range 500-2000] - 1 LYJ=0.001%
- 5 LYJ=0.025%
- 10 LYJ=0.1%
- 20LYJ=0.4%
- 50LYJ=2.5%
- 100LYJ=10%
Natural cut off point safety wise is around 30LY for a 'navigated jump'=Navigator Superior=Incident % = LY 2/5000 =Navigator 'Prince'=Incident % = LY 2/25000 =Navigator 'King'=Incident % = LY 2/100000
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 24, 2004 23:54:33 GMT -5
Looks good philip, I certantly dont have any problem with those numbers. But I would lose the Prince/ King thing for navigator ranks if thats what they are, stick with Lord/elder and Patriarch/Matriach
|
|