Recent content by AnotherDilbert

If we embrace the concept of modules as external pods (à la the HG'22 cutter) we can make silly designs. How about a 200 Dt J-1 ship with three 50 Dt modules, that can operate as a 100 Dt J-2 ship with one 50 Dt module? Or 200 Dt with two modules, 20 Dt cargo (courtesy of fuel/cargo...

It's just my way of understanding the design; recreate it and tinker with it... Deck plans takes a lot more time.

I understand, but that should steal some space. Generally I would hide the fuel tanks in the curvature. The formal deck plans should then be a bit smaller than the ship tonnage. Even the massive bureaucracies of the Navy and Scouts care about budgets, but if that doesn't matter to your game...

Sorry. Cool ship, like a jump version of the cutter... What's the external look of the ship? Is it flat as a pancake with a uniform 3 m deck height, or is it more oval? It's nice for a adventuring party, but I fail to see the economic use case for it... It has too many "nice to have" features...

Of course we can have "irregular" design in the core books, we always have... Generally, it just doesn't matter that much. The Modular Cutter works perfectly well in Space: 1999, CT, and MgT2 even if it is a bit outside the design rules. If you want to build something similar, you just have to...

Sure, that would be nice. With Pangloss, in the best of all worlds, we could even wish that the official ships would be designed under the rules, e.g. with respect to modules and bridge sizes, but in the real world...

At a guess they are irregular shaped. The rules only mention hollowing them out, not shaping the outside. The example images we have are generally irregular, e.g. HG'22, p247: Predecessor in CT Fighting Ships, p45:

We can get fairly close to a classic cutter using Breakaway Hull: https://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/threads/classic-breakaway-cutter.121675/post-931833 It's just more expensive...

MgT "module" ≠ CT cutter "module"... MgT "modules" are internal. Mothership tonnage does not change, drive potential isn't recalculated, mothership streamlining isn't changed, mothership armour covers the "module". CT Cutter "Modules" are external, what MgT2 and T5 calls "pods". Note there...

Agreed. You are paying for the extra hatches, extra connections, extra fuel lines, extra power lines, extra air conduits, extra water/waste pipes, and extra structural reinforcement. You can put anything there from electronics to fuel tanks to staterooms, and the space has to be prepared for...

That sounds correct, by the rules modules are internal components that don't have hull options.

Agreed, it should be kCr 50/Dt * 150 Dt * 120% [streamlined] * 133% [modular] = kCr 12 000 = MCr 12. See HG'22, p144, "Modular Cutter": kCr 50/Dt * 50 Dt * 120% [streamlined] * 160% [modular] = kCr 4 800 = MCr 4.8. In addition a basic module would cost: kCr 25/Dt * 50 Dt = kCr 1 250 = MCr 1.25

Internal modules or empty cargo holds don't let you recalculate thrust. Docking clamps or breakaway hulls lets you recalculate thrust, as the classic cutter does...

Because it does not follow the rules in HG, but the non-rules from CT... MgT1 to MgT2 HG'16 were clear: Modules are internal, and are protected by the ship's armour (that cannot be modular). Pods were introduced in Element-class Cruisers, without rules, that worked like the classic Cutter...

Roughly the same, but with a few large carriers instead of drop tanks and half as many Euriskos? Agility as defence is very expensive at TL-12 as the powerplants required are so large and expensive, so armour is the main defence and missiles are the main weapon. At TL-13 powerplants, hence...