Highguard - Modular Hull costs

[Carolus]

I need some help with determining the costs of my ship. Or parts of it at least. Inspired by the modular cutter I made ship that has 10 of the cutter modules and as such is highly adaptable. The costs of the ship itself are not a problem, just increasing the cost of the hull by a percentage equal to the percentage that is modular. But here is the thing: what is the cost of the modules themselves? I thought about designing the module as a "spacecraft" itself, but doubling the costs of the hull (because 100% of the module is, you know, modular), but then I looked at the modules mentioned in the modular cutter entry.

1. The ATV module at MCr. 1,8 seems to make some sense. With a streamlined hull costing 60k per ton, the module would cost exactly MCr.1,8. This however ignores the costs for the ATV itself (155.000 credits) and the costs for the docking space (MCr. 2,75 (or MCr. 4 for a full hanger)).
2. The fuel module for MCr.1. Since fuel storage is basically "free" when designing a ship, it makes sense that this is cheaper than the ATV module. It is however 44% cheaper than the costs of the hull should be. Which would make some sense, since part of hull is already part of the mothership. But then there is one standard module left:
3. The open module for MCr.2. This module seems to be just cargo space, which just like fuel space, is effectively "free" when making a ship with the high guard rules. Yet this module is double the price of the fuel module. It's even more expensive than the ATV module!

It seems to me that the prices for the modules are just arbitrarily chosen. Does anyone know if there is any logic behind it? Because I would love to design some modules, such as a Medbay module, but I have no idea how to price them. I could make up some rules for it and reprice the Original modules for consistancy, but if such guidelines already exist I would really like to hear them.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It seems to me that the prices for the modules are just arbitrarily chosen. Does anyone know if there is any logic behind it?

The prices seem to come from LBB2, so they are arbitrary, at least from the perspective of this system.


I just let the module cost whatever the included components cost, without any extra "frame" cost.

 

[Carolus]

So the prices are merely an artefact from an older version? That does explain their weird values.

Having the modules cost only the component cost without the frame costs doesn't work however. An cargo space only module would be free. I think I will go with something like the normall hull cost of the component with a 40% discount. That would reprice the open module for the cutter to MCr.1,08, which seems fair.

Thanks for your input!

 

[steve98052]

Since a Modular Cutter can operate without a module (though with risk of damage except with low-stress maneuvers), I'd rule that it's a 20 dton craft with provisions for docking the 30 dton module.

The modules are spaceworthy by themselves, except for the need for power if they have powered systems. I'd allow limited power to be assumed to come from batteries, such as a few airlock cycles, a few hours of life support, lights, communications, etc. But they're complete hulls, normally with two airlocks.

An exception is the bracing frame, which is just a simple brace that allows the Modular Cutter to perform normal maneuvers without a regular module.

So price them out like a ship.

 

[AndrewW]

The modules wheren't designed with the rules. Just design a module the same as you would a normal ship with whatever parts it needs, this will include a hull to hold the module together. The extra cost for a modular hull is already figured into the main ship and doesn't need to be figured into the module itself.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Since a Modular Cutter can operate without a module (though with risk of damage except with low-stress maneuvers), I'd rule that it's a 20 dton craft with provisions for docking the 30 dton module.

No...

The Cutter is not an Eagle (in this edition at least).

Modules are internal, Pods and carried craft are external.

 

[Old School]

Few of the ship costs in High Guard match the actual High Guard rules.

 

[AndrewW]

Few of the ship costs in High Guard match the actual High Guard rules.

Well, they do but the printed ones don't always.

 

[Old School]

My point is that the ship designs in High Guard are riddled with typos and general sloppiness.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

My point is that the ship designs in High Guard are riddled with typos and general sloppiness.

Isn't that traditional? Look at CT or MT Fighting Ships...

 

[Old School]

I certainly dont have your familiarity with the various iterations of Traveller over the years, but I’m sure MgT2 High Guard is far from the game’s first error filled book. I wouldn't mind it being the last. I think fan-sourced quality control could do alot of good. Fits in well with kickstarter funded projects.

 

[Condottiere]

It's an issue if you've been exposed to prior art of the Cutter as to the definition of modular, because if it's entirely internal, then a percentage of the hull has to be dedicated for the hatches.

As regards to the costs being relative to current construction design prices, if there's isn't an official update, recalculate them to what would be fair market value.

 

[steve98052]

The one version of Traveller that is really light on errors -- from copy-edit slips to design mistakes -- was GURPS Traveller. The system is too crunchy for my tastes, but they have a knack for very solid production values. I think they get a lot of design feedback from volunteers; I helped make one non-Traveller book more readable. They also have well-maintained, easy-to-find errata pages for every title they've ever published.

I understand that budget constraints and the realities of present-day publishing don't allow as much spending on pre-publication error-checking, but the errata example would be good to follow.

- - -

Since a Modular Cutter can operate without a module (though with risk of damage except with low-stress maneuvers), I'd rule that it's a 20 dton craft with provisions for docking the 30 dton module.

No...

The Cutter is not an Eagle (in this edition at least).

Modules are internal, Pods and carried craft are external.

OK, that disagrees with my statement. My image of the Modular Cutter is a bridge, a spine with a crawl passage, and an engineering section. Modules are cylinders with a notch for the cutter's spine.

This edition does things differently, so my description would not apply.

 

[Old School]

The MgT2 depiction of the modular curret definitely doesnt support the idea of it being 20 dTons, but of course we’re playing a game in which empty space (i.e. post jump fuel tanks, empty mudules, unused cargo space, etc) matter just was much in your acceleration as if they were completely packed with liquid hydrogen, so no need to get too worried about it.

Past renditions of the modular cutter do support the 20 dTon idea. Which one you want to go with is up to you.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Quite, the CT - TNE module was an external pod. MgT formalised Modular Hulls, and thereby changed the meaning.

The closest we have in MgT to the classic Cutter is an external hull carried in a Docking Clamp, except that that makes the combined craft unstreamlined, so useless for interface craft. Since that limitation is intended to make Docking Clamps less attractive for carriers and other starships (I believe), we might ignore that for smallcraft?

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Old School]

Looked at the cutter deck plan in hogh guard recently as I was designing a ship and wanted the cutter’s docking space to be accurate. Realized that as drawn, the module itself is 50dTon, not 30. I dont expect the art to be but so accurate, but c’mon!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's even worse. Notice the circular cross-section of the hull. If the exterior view and the deck plan is to believed the cutter is about 34 squares (51 m) long with a 5 square (7.5 m) diameter, for a total volume of 51 × π × (7.5/2)² ≈ 2250 m³ ≈ 160 Dton.

The module alone is about 90 Dt as drawn...


The dimensions are about right if you make the squares 1 m × 1 m. Then we have a length of 34 m and a diameter of 5 m for a volume of 34 × π × (5/2)² ≈ 668 m³ ≈ 48 Dt.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

My image of the Modular Cutter is a bridge, a spine with a crawl passage, and an engineering section. Modules are cylinders with a notch for the cutter's spine.

Quite, that was the classical Cutter (except the crawlway?).


We can make something similar with a breakaway design. By the letter of the rules, we can't make unpowered cargo boxes as breakaway sections, but it's difficult to argue that we can't fit a piece to the puzzle just because it doesn't have a power plant.


Thanks for the inspiration!
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=121675

 

[Bardicheart]

Saw this thread this morning and as I was recently experimenting with these rules and ran into much the same question I thought I'd share how I resolved it.

I built a ship as normal figuring normal hull cost based on my regular hull choices. But, early on in the design process I decided how much of the hull would be modular (in my case that turned out to be 30% of a 800 dT hull or 240 dT).

Then when I got around to designing the modules, I started with a base cost for each module that was 30% of the cost of the main hull, which in my case turned out to be 18 MCr. So an empty 240 dT cargo module would be 18 MCr. A Passenger variant with staterooms, low berths, common spaces, etc. would be 18 MCr plus the cost of the additional components.

There was no "docking space" or cost because the module isn't a subcraft capable of docking and undocking in space so doesn't require a hangar. In my case the modules weren't designed to be left on a planet as a "base" camp (they had no power source of their own or anything) but they could have been designed that way, it just depends what components you add. The cost of the module itself (that 30%) presumably included the cost of the latching mechanisms that hold it in place. For modules this large my assumption was they were generally only swapped out at a starport.

That seemed a reasonable solution to me that stayed within the intent of the rules as best I understood them.