Jump to content
EliasWindrider

The Nubian design collective's whole vehicle crafting handbook

Recommended Posts

@EliasWindrider

I think the Ton-falk, as the Empire's first carrier, might be less efficient. 

If all the weapons were individual (i.e.: no weapons banks) , it would be closer.

Plus, I would say that it would have at least a few Repair Bays.

I think that it's sub-par, but workable within the rules.

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

I think the Ton-falk, as the Empire's first carrier, might be less efficient. 

If all the weapons were individual (i.e.: no weapons banks) , it would be closer.

Plus, I would say that it would have at least a few Repair Bays.

I think that it's sub-par, but workable within the rules.

👍

I didn't put repair bays on the other carriers and they came out about perfect with VSL hp, how many hp should I add to cover the repair bays? 2? The marauder needed an extra hp and 1 for a repair bay.  Except for th secutor, the others could get 2 repair bays fro 2 hp, the secutor could get 1, and then gain 3 hp from crafting to get another  2 repair bays.

Btw I'd call the marauder Corvette a "pocket carrier", I built it as a straight up carrier (carrier frame  and transport hull) just smaller "faster/more maneuverable" and put a bunch of guns on it, could likely have built it more efficiently with a ship of the line hull

Edited by EliasWindrider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Assault Corvette (Marauder, EotE CRB 267)
crew 177, passengers 80, cargo 175, hangar (minimum of 2 bays, Sil 44)

Carrier Frame: Elegant design => 50 htt, 25 hp, 400 crew, 125 passengers; integrated improvements, => 250 passengers; officer's quarters => 432 crew, 218 passengers; integrated improvements => 216 crew, 218 passengers; officer's quarters => 354 crew, 80 passengers

Ion Turbine Engine: 22 hp, speed 1; 25 sst; def 1/0/0/0; 2x strain threshold =>  35 sst, 1 speed mod => speed 2; crafting upgrade enhanced output => speed 3, 2x fine tuned circuits => 37 sst

Ship of the line hull, 5 armor, -2 handling, increase defense in all arcs => 2/1/1/1, crafting upgrades x2 maneuvering fins => handling=0, 1x cargo pod => 180 enc.

Highly automated systems attachment 20 hp, 177 crew

life support, 3x modded => 19 hp, 100 days of consumables

11 weapons (2 weapon banks one extra)=> 14 hp left, 35 sst

hyperdrive => 13 hp left

navicomputer (still 13 hp)

2x dedicated hanger bays => 9 hp left

sensors => 8 hp left

3x reinforced frame => 65 htt, 2 hp left

1 customization hp  

=> a little more hp efficient.

 also 10 too many days of consumables and 5 too many enc.

Edited by EliasWindrider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2w9oicv7s63dhmg/TheNubianDesignCollectivesWholeVehicleCraftingHandbook.pdf/file

carrier frames now get 2+VSL hp and I implemented the promised weapon banks strain threshold errata (although it's only mentioned in the weapon banks attachment and not in the frigate, heavy cruiser, destroyer, space station, gunship or ship of the line blocks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an error in the new marauder, I charged 3 hp instead of 1 for a 3 x modded life support system.  Therefore with ship of the line it's 2 hp more efficient before the repair bay and 1 hp more efficient after the repair bay.  The ship of the line fits a little better narratively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

And if there are too many Hard Points left on a ship build, you can always use more (unmodded) Life Support systems to use up some HPs.

The point of the ruleset is to allow gamers to make starships (and more generally vehicles) that are comparable to the official ships, and with some really good crafting checks they can make ships that are a little bit better than the official ships. Having a bunch of "filler" attachments to use up hp when we try to replicate official ships won't prevent gamers from making vehicles that are significantly better than official ships.  Also the point is to add variety, as in to allow players to have a ship that is awesome at anything without being awesome at everything (i.e. all around better than official ships).  There are some official ships that just weaker than others, and letting gamers make ships that are better than the weaker than average official ships is ok as long as what they make isn't significantly better than the average/typical ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are my short term to do list

The MC80 and MC80A should have the same frame, because the crew and passengers are the same, and a 1 silhouette difference means integrated improvements  were used on the passengers on the MC80A and highly automated systems were used on the the crew.  Since highly automated system has a mod to halve the crew a second time, leaving an integrated improvements for the MC80 to POTENTIALLY apply  to crew, the destroyer crew is either about 5400 or 10800 (with some officers quarters games to play leading to the about), and base passengers is about 1200.

 

Sil 8:
    Star Cruiser (MC80 Liberty, AoR CRB 284)
crew 5400, passengers 1200, cargo 70000, hangar (Sil 108+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Star Destroyer (Victory, AoR CRB 284)
crew 6107, passengers 1600, cargo 6500, hangar (72+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Star Destroyer (Imperial I, AoR CRB 281)
crew 37085, passengers 9700, cargo 15000, hangar (Sil 216+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Battlecruiser (Maelstrom, LbE 57)
crew 45000, passengers 15000, cargo 12500, hangar (Sil 288+ numerous shuttles, etc)

Sil 9:
    Star Cruiser (MC80A Home One, LbE 54)
crew 5480, passengers 1200, cargo 85000, hangar (Sil 360+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Star Battlecruiser (Preator II, AoR CRB 283)
crew 109000, passengers 14000, cargo 78000, hangar (Sil 360+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Dreadnought (Assertor, LbE 56)
crew 125000, passengers 20000, cargo 145000, hangar (Sil 360+ numerous shuttles, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

These are my short term to do list

The MC80 and MC80A should have the same frame, because the crew and passengers are the same, and a 1 silhouette difference means integrated improvements  were used on the passengers on the MC80A and highly automated systems were used on the the crew.  Since highly automated system has a mod to halve the crew a second time, leaving an integrated improvements for the MC80 to POTENTIALLY apply  to crew, the destroyer crew is either about 5400 or 10800 (with some officers quarters games to play leading to the about), and base passengers is about 1200.

 

Sil 8:
    Star Cruiser (MC80 Liberty, AoR CRB 284)
crew 5400, passengers 1200, cargo 70000, hangar (Sil 108+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Star Destroyer (Victory, AoR CRB 284)
crew 6107, passengers 1600, cargo 6500, hangar (72+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Star Destroyer (Imperial I, AoR CRB 281)
crew 37085, passengers 9700, cargo 15000, hangar (Sil 216+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Battlecruiser (Maelstrom, LbE 57)
crew 45000, passengers 15000, cargo 12500, hangar (Sil 288+ numerous shuttles, etc)

Sil 9:
    Star Cruiser (MC80A Home One, LbE 54)
crew 5480, passengers 1200, cargo 85000, hangar (Sil 360+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Star Battlecruiser (Preator II, AoR CRB 283)
crew 109000, passengers 14000, cargo 78000, hangar (Sil 360+ numerous shuttles, etc)
    Dreadnought (Assertor, LbE 56)
crew 125000, passengers 20000, cargo 145000, hangar (Sil 360+ numerous shuttles, etc)

If you find you are often running too high on Hard Points, perhaps add a module or device that lets you 'restock' the Consumables of docked ships. Like a "Refueling Depot" or something. Basically lets certain ships (like fighter craft or other such vehicles) have a way to restock without it taking out of the Carrier itself, or constantly needed it to stop to refuel fighters.

Edited by Mon_Cal_Professor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Mon_Cal_Professor said:

If you find you are often running too high on Hard Points, perhaps add a module or device that lets you 'restock' the Consumables of docked ships. Like a "Refueling Depot" or something. Basically lets certain ships (like fighter craft or other such vehicles) have a way to restock without it taking out of the Carrier itself, or constantly needed it to stop to refuel fighters.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm following the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) design principle, at least for the "user interface" (it doesn't matter how complicated the math I have to do as long as the end product/ruleset that the user follows is pretty simple while being sufficiently general and well balanced).  This adds an extra layer of complexity not just to the design phase but also to game play for any carrier without the attachment, that I don't want to add when the easier/simpler solution is to just reduce the number of hp that the frame has or to discount the hp cost for that frame for whatever is eating up a lot of hp.  Btw K.I.S.S. is a widely used/known design principle and I'm not calling anyone stupid, that's just the name of the design principle, yeah it's a real thing.

Note to self, we need a 1 or 2 hp salon pod attachment, it's for the special docking clamp not the actual salon pod.  *Might* also increase the hp cost of a navicomputer for silhouette 3 and smaller vessels (or just starfighters) from 1 to 2 to discourage them from taking a navicomputer over an astromech, but that probably isn't needed.

Actually it would be a modular pod clamp, so you can switch out cargo pods, sensor pods, command pod, etc. and a smaller ship with a matching attachment can also use it, the difference between using this verses the regular free docking hatches is with this thing the docked ship doesn't have to detach before landing.  The advantage over a hanger bay is it's only 1, and the attached craft is exposed (it's sensors/line of fire etc. is not blocked)

Edited by EliasWindrider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an idea this morning that I think is inspired, modular pods are built with vehicle crafting rules e.g. the salon pod on a consular, the 

AT-TE was a modular pod for the laat/c

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Low_Altitude_Assault_Transport/carrier

I've seen some 3d models of a conceptually similar set up for AT-AT's but I don't know if it was official or fan art 

The wayfarerhttp://swrpg.viluppo.net/transportation/starships/442/ is another example of an official ship with a modular pod and I think there was a trandoshan freighter in an episode of the clone wars with multiple pods. 

In the prequels there's the hyperdrive docking rings which has a jedi starfighters (like the aethersprite piloted by obiwan in AotC) as a pod

the vcx-100 http://swrpg.viluppo.net/transportation/starships/2835/ https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/VCX-100_light_freighter a.k.a. ghost even has a "shuttlepod" 

Now you may be asking what's the difference between the clamp for the ghosts starfighter which I just labeled a "shuttlepod" and the docking clamps that most party ships have for free as per the side bar on page 258 of the EotE core.  I'm glad you "asked"... the free ones don't let you land with the fighters attached and the ghost's "shuttlepod" didn't have to detach for the ghost to land.

So with the examples out of the way here are 2 new MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE attachmentS

1) mothership docking clamp (1 hp) with a mod to add a hatch to it (this goes on the modular pod)

2) modular pod docking clamp with a mod to add a hatch to it.  (The goes on the mothership, or maybe I ought to swap the names) the maximum number of hp that can be spent on modular pod clamps at the time of construction is silhouette if they aren't designed in at most 1 hp can be spent to retrofit one later. The number of hp that it costs to install a modular pod docking clamps depends on the relative size of the mothership and modular pod(s)

If the mothership and mod pod have the same silhouette (e.g. the laat/c and at-te) then it decreases the max speed of both/either by 1 (to a minimum of one) and makes handling 2 points worse WHEN THEY ARE ATTACHED.  It costs the mothership silhouette hp (so if you install this it's the only pod silhouette you can attach).

If the pod is 1 silhouette smaller than the mothership, then it costs the mothership the mothership's silhouette divided by 2 round down hp per docking clamp and WHEN THEY ARE ATTACHED there's a 1 point penalty to handling per ATTACHED modular pod.

If the pod is 2 silhouettes smaller than the mothership, then it costs the mothership 1 hp per modular pod clamp (with no handling penalty when they are attached).  

And the latter 2 types can be mixed and matched. For example a silhouette 5 mothership can have 2 modular pod clamps for silhouette 4 modular pods, and 1 modular pod docking clamp for a silhouette 3 or modular pod.  OR the silhouette 5 mothership could have one clamp for a silhouette 4 pod and 3 clamps for silhouette 3 modular pods.  So you can really voltron/Lego reconfigure a mothership to meat changing missions requirements.

And I'm aware that a silhouette 3 mothership could have 3 silhouette 2 modular pods because 3/2 round down is 1 hp, and it can spend 3 hp on this.

Now there are some constraints on the pod vehicles. If the mothership has consumables, the pod has to too.  If the pod has consumables, it either has to have an engine or auxiliary generator.

Now some things... a silhouette 4 mothership with the transport hull could attach a silhouette 3 modular pod with the gunship hull.  The modular pod could have the oversized weapon mount allowing it to mount a light turbolaser.  Making the pod a literal gunship. Of course it costs 2 hp.

Now I'm worried about how crazy this could get so maybe there's a new mothership hull that allows you to spend silhouette hp on modular pod docking clamps and if you don't have that hull a ship can spend at most 1 hp on modular pod docking clamps, and a mothership hull is pretty weak on its own?

What are your thoughts/feedback?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm following the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) design principle, at least for the "user interface" (it doesn't matter how complicated the math I have to do as long as the end product/ruleset that the user follows is pretty simple while being sufficiently general and well balanced).  This adds an extra layer of complexity not just to the design phase but also to game play for any carrier without the attachment, that I don't want to add when the easier/simpler solution is to just reduce the number of hp that the frame has or to discount the hp cost for that frame for whatever is eating up a lot of hp.  Btw K.I.S.S. is a widely used/known design principle and I'm not calling anyone stupid, that's just the name of the design principle, yeah it's a real thing.

Note to self, we need a 1 or 2 hp salon pod attachment, it's for the special docking clamp not the actual salon pod.  *Might* also increase the hp cost of a navicomputer for silhouette 3 and smaller vessels (or just starfighters) from 1 to 2 to discourage them from taking a navicomputer over an astromech, but that probably isn't needed.

Actually it would be a modular pod clamp, so you can switch out cargo pods, sensor pods, command pod, etc. and a smaller ship with a matching attachment can also use it, the difference between using this verses the regular free docking hatches is with this thing the docked ship doesn't have to detach before landing.  The advantage over a hanger bay is it's only 1, and the attached craft is exposed (it's sensors/line of fire etc. is not blocked)

I'm aware of K.I.S.S. and I see and agree with your points.

And I like the modular pod clamp.
Full disclosure, I'm a software engineer IRL, so... I suppose me being a Engineer in game is a bit redundant.

More in depth thoughts on the Clamps and Docking ports:
I like the idea, and I think it works well to add in situations where you can various interesting ship designs or variants that make use of it. It's honestly a great idea. I would however, have it round up on Sil -1 docks so as to make it a bit more difficult to fit ships one size smaller than you. (Keeping in mind here that the Ghost is Sil 5 [for some reason] and the Phantom is a Sil 3 ship. [I think]

If you do this, one other thing you may want to include as a module is a Shield Generator that expands to any attached ships so that the attached ship may use the mother ship's defense. This, while being a useful improvement to defend the attached ships, would also make the combat flow a bit easier if it was used by making the entire 'Voltron' stack all act as one entity for the point of Defense. Should just cost 1 HP on Sil <= 4 and 2 hp on Sil >= 5.

Then the mothership Hull could reduce that cost by 1, potentially?

Edited by Mon_Cal_Professor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mon_Cal_Professor said:

I'm aware of K.I.S.S. and I see and agree with your points.

And I like the modular pod clamp.
Full disclosure, I'm a software engineer IRL, so... I suppose me being a Engineer in game is a bit redundant.

More in depth thoughts on the Clamps and Docking ports:
I like the idea, and I think it works well to add in situations where you can various interesting ship designs or variants that make use of it. It's honestly a great idea. I would however, have it round up on Sil -1 docks so as to make it a bit more difficult to fit ships one size smaller than you. (Keeping in mind here that the Ghost is Sil 5 [for some reason] and the Phantom is a Sil 3 ship. [I think]

If you do this, one other thing you may want to include as a module is a Shield Generator that expands to any attached ships so that the attached ship may use the mother ship's defense. This, while being a useful improvement to defend the attached ships, would also make the combat flow a bit easier if it was used by making the entire 'Voltron' stack all act as one entity for the point of Defense. Should just cost 1 HP on Sil <= 4 and 2 hp on Sil >= 5.

Then the mothership Hull could reduce that cost by 1, potentially?

If you read through the history, a previous poster who wasn't familiar with K.I.S.S. got offended when I explained Keep It Simple Stupid because he thought I was calling him stupid, so now I go out of my way to explain that K.I.S.S. is a real widely used thing that I didn't make up to avoid offending anyone else.

Speaking of K.I.S.S. and defense I forgot to explain that unless you make a called shot (2 extra setback as per RAW) you target the mothership by default. I'd have to look at the called shot rules again to confirm, but I believe that RAW say you'd use the defense of the mothership for the called shot, a gunslinger talent in fly casual should provide a page number to the called shot rules in eote core. Or maybe we might use targetting the subsystem rules which I think just let you choose the crit but I'd have to look it up.  point is to use RAW or an elaboration on RAW rather than make up a new attachment to do what RAW says anyway.

But pods could have sensors, weapons, engines don't work unless they're the same size but hyperdrives might.  A modular pod is built using the exact same rules as any other vehicle.

The Modular Cargo pod of the wayfarer probably has a dedicated hanger bay and one or more dedicated cargo bays.  

I'm leaning towards the only the mothership can spend more than 1 hp on modular pod clamps, which would leave the ghost stuck at a sil-2 shuttle pod.  Thus the laat/c would have a mothership hull but the consular wouldn't.

I'm thinking of having the mothership hull impose a -5 penalty to system strain threshold and maybe a similar penalty to htt too in order to replicate the space master

http://swrpg.viluppo.net/transportation/starships/440/

Also I need to make a 1 hp integrated astromech droid attachment (obiwan's aethersprite in aotc had one).  It provides all the functionality of an astromech in an astromech droid socket except that the astromech can't leave the socket.

Btw I have a science masters in Aeronautics and Astronautics and a PhD in mechanical engineering but I function primarily as a computational mathematician at a gov't lab, and most of the math is related to satellites, sensors, orbits, geolocation... that sort of thing.  I'm on a scrum team with a bunch of computer scientists/software engineers... I prototype algorithms for them that the reimplement-in/port-to java.  I do most of my programming in Matlab and C++.

Edited by EliasWindrider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@EliasWindrider

I like the new concepts. 

I agree that being more restrictive with these new rules is a better route to go.

I like the Mothership concept.

Limiting what the parasite craft can do while attached is a good idea. I can see allowing it to possibly combine it's engines with the parent craft, if it could actually provide enough thrust to help.

By the way, I'm always drawn back to the Traveller RPG game and their ship construction rules when I think of these rules...

Cheers!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

I like the new concepts. 

I agree that being more restrictive with these new rules is a better route to go.

I like the Mothership concept.

Limiting what the parasite craft can do while attached is a good idea. I can see allowing it to possibly combine it's engines with the parent craft, if it could actually provide enough thrust to help.

By the way, I'm always drawn back to the Traveller RPG game and their ship construction rules when I think of these rules...

Cheers!

 

I've never played or read the rules for the traveler RPG.  I'm assuming that they had good starship construction rules in your opinion. 

I had thought about engine modules but.. that involves a whole lot of complexity of HOW to determine the combined speed that I didn't have a good/simple solution for.  

The problem I'm trying to deal with now is how to prevent ships with the mothership hull from having far too many hp... when you consider the hp on the parasite ships, they can each get their own attachments.  I'm currently thinking that it's effective silhouette is one less for "all" construction purposes other than 1) determining the number of hp it can spend on modular pod docking clamps and 2) what attachments (including weapons it can mount).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

Perhaps the best way to handle the parasite craft is to treat them just like ships in a hangar, in that they cannot use their own equipment?

The lore on the consular's salon pod says that there are variants like sensor pod, command pod, etc.  that can mildly customize the behavior of the ship.  And that's really a large part of the point of the modular pods. Also, they would be strictly inferior to hanger bays then.

And there's something cool about a cargo hauler dropping of a few modular cargo bays/shipping containers, and plugging in a modular hanger bay and some modular weapon batteries and poof instant warship.  That's not too different than the lore on the strike cruiser which I've been a fan of since d6.  Strike cruiser has explicitly modular construction and well placed or lucky shots can knock out power to sections.  What was left an open question in the lore is how common it was to reconfigure a specific strike cruiser to meet a specific mission profile.

If it's just one pod being swapped out it's not a big deal in terms of game balance, so the solution is to balance the mothership by making it a strictly inferior option until modular pods are added.

Spitballing here... if a player was going to do this it would probably be a sil 5 ship.  I just looked at frames and the most advantageous ones is the patrol ship (same hp as transport (2+VSL), decent htt (15+VSL) smallish crew, max speed one faster than normal.  So if the mothership frame causes construction to be 1 sil smaller it'd be getting 30 htt, 17 hp, it'd have speed 4 (or maybe 5, lets make the rule be it has speed of actual silhouette so 4), and 15 base sst modded 3 times for 27 sst and taking it down to 14 hp, 5 of which would be on modular docking clamps which is probably one sil 4 and 3 sil 3.  So mothership has 9 hp to work with, hyperdrive, sensor, 1x life support (200 days).  Let's add 2x reinforced frame attachment for 40 htt, military grade shield generators, 1 weapon (probably quad heavy lasers on a turret), and say they got 1 free hp as crafting upgrade of which they'll leave 1 unspent for future customization.  Considering that it has only 20 enc, it's pretty weak for sil 5.

But it's got 1 sil 4 pod (not eligible for bulk freighter hull because it's sil 4 instead of sil 5, so let's say a transport frame and hull with a single ion coil, speed sst etc. doesn't matter on the engine, it's adding 16 passenger capacity due to integrated improvements x2, will need 1x life support and the 2 transport hull mods to get it to 90 days.that leaves 13 hp to spend... if it spent 8 of those on dedicated cargo bays that would be +640 enc, and maybe another +90 from the cargo pods crafting upgrade,  so together with the 20 from the mothership we're at 750 enc, respectable but not awesome, put a turret hyperdrive and navicomputer on it (an awesome escape pod) and that leaves 2 hp unspent. Probably basic sensors. 

One of the sil3 pods would likely have transport frame, elegant design (12 hp, 15htt ), a gunship hull, single ion coil suped up for speed and sst, hyperdrive & astromech droid socket, 1x life support,  so 6 hp left, add an oversized weapon mount and could put a twin light turbolaser on it, need sensors so 2 hp left.

And 2 more sil3 modular pods to go.  So far it's not seeming that abusable 

A dedicated cargo bay costs 1 hp for a transport hull and frame and provides 245 enc for a sil 5 ship.  A sil3 ship can have 6 dedicated bays each of which provides 30 enc add in 3x10 more enc for 3x cargo pods and that's 210 enc, and you'd get that for 1hp (for a sil-2=3 modular pod clamp). A silhouette 4 modular pod could provide as much as 730 enc and cost 2 hp, compared to 3hpx245=735.  The mothership will have 10 less hp than than the same sil 5 frame with a transport hull but would probably be picking up that or a little more from the modular pods.  My principal area of concern is that each modular pod could have its own gunnery droid brain which might add 4 ish attacks per round, which would put it on par with a consular with enough crew to man all its guns.   If a maxed out patrol ship frame with a mothership hull fought  a maxed out patrol ship frame with ship of the line hull the ship of the line hull would win more often than not.

Where things might get interesting is a silhouette 8 destroyer with a mothership hull mounting 8 sil6 modular pods with ship of the line hulls (with weapon bank math) mothership hull would have 15 less hp but would gain 8*30 or so hp that could be spent in weapon banks... ok that's broken.  So what if mothership was a frame instead of a hull,  

Edited by EliasWindrider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that would be general enough. I'm thinking that anything (that isn't a pod) should be able to have 1 pod (sil, sil-1, or sil-2 for sil, sil/2, 1 hp respectively),  the mothership frame will be sil 5 might be able to take elegant design twice.

With larger scope, that would be sil6 mothership, allowing 2 sil 5 pods for -2 handling, if they both have ship of the line hulls they could do weapon banks of light turbolasers with about 50 hp to spend...  hmm.... stil problematic what if ship of the line hulls can't have mothership docking clamps, so we end up talking about 50 weapons instead of 50 banks of weapons.  That might make a mothership hull work again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@EliasWindrider

The Temple Class Heavy Freighter (Age of Rebellion CRB page 443) is the ideal basis for this concept. 

It has three modular pods.

Because it lists the total cargo capacity or total passenger capacity depending upon configuration, each pod could hold either 50 passengers or 10,000 Enc of cargo.

Also: the cargo version specifically mentions not locomotion, but having Life Support, so that's a plus for understanding how to craft it.

Edited by salamar_dree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you shot down the Pod Frames, but I'm still thinking that two Pod Frames would work.

Small Pod Frame (Sil 2)

Large Pod Frame (Sil 5, may take Larger Scope twice)

Crew: 0, Passengers: 0, Encumbrance: 0

Not sure about HTT and HP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

The Temple Class Heavy Freighter (Age of Rebellion CRB page 443) is the ideal basis for this concept. 

It has three modular pods.

Because it lists the total cargo capacity or total passenger capacity depending upon configuration, each pod could hold either 50 passengers or 10,000 Enc of cargo.

Also: the cargo version specifically mentions not locomotion, but having Life Support, so that's a plus for understanding how to craft it.

a sil 6 mothership frame (larger scope on a sil 5 mothership frame) is remarkably close to meeting the cargo bit.

it can have 2 rather than 3 sil 5 pods with bulk freighter hull, and a sil 5 bulk freighter could have 10 dedicated cargo pods, each with 1025 enc => 10,250 enc.  and there'd still be a lot of wasted hp (but I plan on doing a escalating credit cost for leaving unspent hp, and/or a use it or lose it policy)

but 50 passengers per pod is ridiculously low, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...