150-dTon Modular Transport

[Arkathan]

If that’s the case why does the cutter increase from a thrust 4 to a thrust 6 and is unstreemlined without a module?

Paying for the total hull, 50 tons, essentially means the ship comes with a cargo module if you are paying the cost for a module. Intentionally removing the module, and leaving nothing in its place, reduces the tonnage of the Cutter, thereby increasing the thrust.
Edit for clarity: I'm looking specifically at the fighter module for cutters. The cutter hull is streamlined. The fighters won't fit in the standard cutter shell and poke out, although volume is constant. So that is more of a special rule/handwaved sort of thing. Not removing the hull covering does not reduce volume when the module is removed. You have to fly around with a gaping hole, rendering your ship unstreamlined to get the boost.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I plugged it into @Arkathan's spreadsheet, and here are the costs. I'd recommend anyone building a ship do that.

 

[tytalan]

Paying for the total hull, 50 tons, essentially means the ship comes with a cargo module if you are paying the cost for a module. Intentionally removing the module, and leaving nothing in its place, reduces the tonnage of the Cutter, thereby increasing the thrust.

Exactly which is why it’s not a internal module

 

[tytalan]

Volume counts, not mass.

Exactly so if it was a internal module the volume would not change if you ran without a module but we know it does change which means that it’s not like a bomb bay it’s like the pic earlier in the thread. This also agrees with the mercenary cruiser which to change modules must leave the current one floating in space while it get the other than puts the first back in the cruiser.

 

[Sageryne]

Which is modified by the hull type of the module. A lot of them are streamlined (why?) and cost 20% extra. Other hull types and modifications can be used as well.

Which should render the ship unstreamlined.

Simple solution....

Since I have already paid the premium for streamlined hull in the design, I can just declare it is an interior module...



All rules compliant...

 

[tytalan]

Simple solution....

Since I have already paid the premium for streamlined hull in the design, I can just declare it is an interior module...

View attachment 5497

All rules compliant...

You don’t really have to do that we know that modules are Vacuum Sealed and capable of short term independents in vacuum and from the Cutter we know that ships with modules can be streamlined. The whole purpose of modules is that they can be changed quickly and even in vacuum. “ A portion of a ship’s hull may be designated as modular, allowing it to be swapped out easily for another module.” HG 2022 pg 44

 

[Sageryne]

I plugged it into @Arkathan's spreadsheet, and here are the costs. I'd recommend anyone building a ship do that.

View attachment 5495

I noted an error in my own spreadsheet for the bridge. It should be MCr1.25 as shown here, I had it at MCr0.94. My formula was wrong.

 

[Sageryne]

You don’t really have to do that we know that modules are Vacuum Sealed and capable of short term independents in vacuum and from the Cutter we know that ships with modules can be streamlined. The whole purpose of modules is that they can be changed quickly and even in vacuum. “ A portion of a ship’s hull may be designated as modular, allowing it to be swapped out easily for another module.” HG 2022 pg 44

I would say that in general, the modular hull section could use some clarification.

 

[Sageryne]

I plugged it into @Arkathan's spreadsheet, and here are the costs. I'd recommend anyone building a ship do that.

View attachment 5495

One element I am not understanding is why does this spreadsheet only show MCr1.75 for modular hull?

The normal hull cost for a 150-dTon streamlined hull is MCr9.

According to the rule on page 44,



Since the modular hull in this case is 50-dTons of a 150-dTon ship (33.33%), then why wouldn't the cost be MCr9 x 133.33% = MCr12 total?

Why is the spreadsheet showing MCr9 + 1.75 = 10.75?

 

[Terry Mixon]

One element I am not understanding is why does this spreadsheet only show MCr1.75 for modular hull?

The normal hull cost for a 150-dTon streamlined hull is MCr9.

According to the rule on page 44,

View attachment 5498

Since the modular hull in this case is 50-dTons of a 150-dTon ship (33.33%), then why wouldn't the cost be MCr9 x 133.33% = MCr12 total?

Why is the spreadsheet showing MCr9 + 1.75 = 10.75?

There was a spot to charge as if the module was installed and I told it to. Perhaps that is it. Not sure. @Arkathan?

 

[Technetium 98]

There was a spot to charge as if the module was installed and I told it to.

Looks like enabling that reduced the cost by the same amount as a completely stock 50 ton module would - so, this represents the cost of bolting on a ship to a pre-existing module.

Calculation's a bit dodge, though - the module (for some reason, I admit this is strange) needs to be the same configuration as its parent ship, so Streamlined, which means it needs a +20% cost increase - it's why the modules in HG22 cost MCr0.9 instead of MCr0.75.

That's just a guess, though, since the sheet is protected.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Looks like enabling that reduced the cost by the same amount as a completely stock 50 ton module would - so, this represents the cost of bolting on a ship to a pre-existing module.

Calculation's a bit dodge, though - the module (for some reason, I admit this is strange) needs to be the same Configuration as its parent ship, so Streamlined, which means it needs a +20% cost increase - it's why the modules in HG22 cost MCr0.9 instead of MCr0.75.

That's just a guess, though, since the sheet is protected.

Ah. I’m not one that builds this configuration but it sounds like the sheet’s formula needs a look. Thanks.

Edit: the password is Password.

 

[Sageryne]

Looks like enabling that reduced the cost by the same amount as a completely stock 50 ton module would - so, this represents the cost of bolting on a ship to a pre-existing module.

Calculation's a bit dodge, though - the module (for some reason, I admit this is strange) needs to be the same Configuration as its parent ship, so Streamlined, which means it needs a +20% cost increase - it's why the modules in HG22 cost MCr0.9 instead of MCr0.75.

That's just a guess, though, since the sheet is protected.

But if, as you pointed out, High Guard modules are internal, why would they need to be streamlined? They are inside a hull that has already paid the cost for streamlining.

 

[tytalan]

I would say that in general, the modular hull section could use some clarification.

Not really you just need to consider the examples. Case in point the Merc Cruiser “ Two spare cutter modules can be carried in addition to those installed on the cutters, providing greater versatility in missions, although changing modules requires a delicate dance of launch, release, recovery and transfer of modules that can take up to an hour. “ HG 2022 pg 201. It clearly indicates that cutter modules are vacuum sealed

 

[Technetium 98]

Why would they need to be streamlined?

No idea, that's just how the rules are written. Maybe it's to cover for the modular hull space already including that cost increase, since it's based on the hull cost? I'd probably make it a flat MCr0.05/ton and make 'Module' a new hull configuration (mostly because it makes my sheet neater) but that's very much just me.

 

[Sageryne]

I have another question.

If you did want to make them an external pod, then would you need a docking clamp to attach them?

 

[Technetium 98]

If you did want to make them an external pod, then would you need a docking clamp to attach them?

Personally, I'd say so - the whole point of modular hull is that they're integral - but at that point why make it a module at all?

 

[Sageryne]

No idea, that's just how the rules are written. Maybe it's to cover for the modular hull space already including that cost increase, since it's based on the hull cost? I'd probably make it a flat MCr0.05/ton and make 'Module' a new hull configuration (mostly because it makes my sheet neater) but that's very much just me.

Where is that written?

 

[Technetium 98]

Where is that written?

Look at the prebuilt modules in HG22 - they all cost MCr0.9 and are marked as Streamlined. Standard ones would cost MCr0.75 - 20% lower.

 

[Sageryne]

Look at the prebuilt modules in HG22 - they all cost MCr0.9 and are marked as Streamlined. Standard ones would cost MCr0.75 - 20% lower.

I appreciate the reference. However, I shouldn’t have to look how sample ships are calculated and then work backwards from that how the rule is meant to be applied. It should state it in the design rules. This goes back to my point that the rules need clarification.