I have a question concerning Cap ship construction and fuel

[billclo]

Hi. I have a question about constructing capital ships. I had an idea and am not sure it's really covered in the rules. I know one can put armored bulkheads on an item (drives, bridge, etc) for 10% additional tonnage.

I was thinking of putting bulkheads on some of the fuel capacity, but not all. Is this even legal? Specifically, say enough fuel tank for a jump-1 and 2 weeks of power plant usage, leaving the rest of the fuel tank(s) without the additional bulkheads. For sure there isn't enough tonnage available to bulkhead the entire fuel system, but surely it's feasible to do part of it in a separate tank?

What do you all think?

 

[phavoc]

The damage tables don't really take into account "armored" fuel tanks.

Though one could easily justify a house rule that allowed for a more distributed fuel system that had additional interior baffles and compartments to minimize fuel loss from external damage.

If you wanted to stay within the rules, however, I would suggest you have a cargo bay fitted out as an internal fuel tank, so that fuel hits would not count against it.. only interior cargo hits.

 

[DFW]

What's the rule for ABH? Ignore 1st hit? If so, just apply for fuel hits. Would that work?

 

[billclo]

What's the rule for ABH? Ignore 1st hit? If so, just apply for fuel hits. Would that work?

Not really, as you haven't paid the tonnage penalty for ALL of the fuel system, only part of it.

A way to get by this might be to put fuel tanks as a hittable location and note the amount of fuel in each location, and designate some as armored and some not.

 

[barnest2]

You make the hit tables for cap ships anyway, so just have one location be fuel, and one location be fuel- armoured

 

[billclo]

The damage tables don't really take into account "armored" fuel tanks.

Though one could easily justify a house rule that allowed for a more distributed fuel system that had additional interior baffles and compartments to minimize fuel loss from external damage.

If you wanted to stay within the rules, however, I would suggest you have a cargo bay fitted out as an internal fuel tank, so that fuel hits would not count against it.. only interior cargo hits.

That would work within the rules. And of course you can put armored bulkheads around such precious cargo.

But as a house-rule, I like the idea of designating hit locations as to how much fuel they have in them, and whether they are armored or not.

 

[DFW]

What's the rule for ABH? Ignore 1st hit? If so, just apply for fuel hits. Would that work?

Not really, as you haven't paid the tonnage penalty for ALL of the fuel system, only part of it.

I reread the OP. I see what you mean

So, IF you account for the entire fuel volume, you could apply the ABH rules.

 

[billclo]

What's the rule for ABH? Ignore 1st hit? If so, just apply for fuel hits. Would that work?

Not really, as you haven't paid the tonnage penalty for ALL of the fuel system, only part of it.

Not according to the rules. There is only fuel tanks according to the rules. So, IF you account for the entire fuel volume, you could apply the ABH rules.
Unless there is tonnage in the rules I didn't read about that is...

Nope, it was merely an attempt to rationalize only armoring part of the fuel capacity. Call it emergency fuel or a protected fuel reserve, etc...