150-dTon Modular Transport

[tytalan]

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?

Actually no that not the point the point is being able to quickly swapped the module sections which you can do in space. The fact that the modules have to pay for streamlining itself indicates they are not internal.

 

[tytalan]

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.

Examples are clarification and is commonly used in RPGs that why most RPGs have an example character in the character creation section. I would say about half of the ships in HG are there as examples

 

[Terry Mixon]

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.

There is a dispersed one that is less expensive.

 

[Terry Mixon]

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?

Concur.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

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.

According to the Smallcraft book some modules are designed to operate independently as satellites over the long term. They are modules more for ease of delivery and return to the shipyard for repairs.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Being neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John, I didn't write High Guard, I just interpret it.

2. I think when modularization became an entirely internal issue, it surprised a lot of us.

3. A module has to conform to the internal area carved out for it, and that does not cost extra.

4. Having had a go with trying to modularize primitive hulls, I came to the conclusion that the cost for modules is fixed.

5. Any streamlining done is by the external hull, or any other hull configuration.

6. However, the module for that might have to be specifically declared to be so.

7. What that twenty five kilostarbux per tonne gives you, is the ability to sync with the primary hull's plumbing, including the power grid.

8. You can configure any material, that isn't hazardous, to fit into a modularized space, at whatever fair market value you can come up with.

9. It doesn't necessarily, then, sync with the primary hull.

 

[Sigtrygg]

 

[Sigtrygg]

 

[Sigtrygg]

 

[Condottiere]

I'd say it's a clear case of not thinking the amendment out to it's likely conclusion.

Can you construct a module that would be vacuum proof and configured as it would be an external hull?

Sure.

How much would it cost, no fracking idea, beyond the default fifty kilostarbux per tonne, if gravitated, and modified by whatever hull configuration is chosen.

So, I just assign an external module to podification.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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

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 module.


In MgT2'22 the classic cutter is back and use an external module (like a pod), abusing the rules for internal modules. Call it Rule 0 in action...


You can of course build a classic cutter with an external module using the breakaway hull rule.

 

[Arkathan]

Exactly which is why it’s not a internal module

It is an internal module. You pay for the hull on the ship once. Not each module. If you had to pay for modular hull for each module, your assertion would be correct. Recreating the modules to check for errors shows that they use the reduced price and the hull covering is removable and can go with an installed module when removed. It has to be that way considering the fighter module.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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...

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...

 

[Arkathan]

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?

The sheet takes the percentage of hull you specify and adds that, so you get the percentage in the example.
The toggle for installed module is there to let you have a summary based on the whole ship instead of just the base. It adds the reduced modular hull costs to the above. Without that checked, you only have the base ship, plus loose summaries for modules.
I'll check the formula for function creep when I get done with today's errands.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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

 

[Arkathan]

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.

It should be using the hull cost of the mother ship to calculate additional module cost.

 

[Technetium 98]

It should be using the hull cost of the mother ship to calculate additional module cost.

The modular hull calculation itself is correct - MCr3 - but the Calculate cost as if module installed? bit doesn't change with hull configuration.

By the way, what's the use case for this?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The modular hull calculation itself is correct - MCr3 - but the Calculate cost as if module installed? bit doesn't change with hull configuration.

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

 

[Arkathan]

The modular hull calculation itself is correct - MCr3 - but the Calculate cost as if module installed? bit doesn't change with hull configuration.

By the way, what's the use case for this?

If you are statting the base ship only, with no module, you uncheck that.
If you stat the ship with specific modules you check it. That way, you have a summary page and a SSD that reflect what is currently in the ship without having to add two or three separate listings for each component.
So, with my modular transport (Custom Ships thread), with three fuel/cargo modules and three passenger modules, check the box, note the modular volume, and then fill in the sheet as if the ship had all of that equipment. A separate sheet would have the version with six fuel/cargo modules.

Same idea when outfitting my Cygnus ships to be cargo, bay weapons, carriers or science vessels.

 

[Sageryne]

I have to say, after three pages of posts, I am more confused about modular hulls than when I started.

If I calculate the cost of a regular 150-dTon streamlined hull, it is MCr9. It is 100% contained, no other costs are required to make it spaceworthy.

Now, if I make part of that ship (33.3%) modular, I have to pay an additional 33.33% hull cost (MCr3). What is that cost for? The hull is already complete and streamlined.

My assumption is that cost is for the hull of the module (MCr0.05 per ton = MCr2.5) and the fittings (mechanical connection points to attach it to the mothership, vacuum-tight doors, utility connections like electrical and life-support), an additional MCr0.5.

If that is the case, then the cost for making the module an "external pod" is already covered.

If it is not the case, then what is that extra MCr3 for?