Modular Cutter: What do modules cost?

[Ursus Maior]

Fellow Travellers,

I was thinking about creating new modules for the Modular Cutter in my campaign and creating other modular designs as well. At some point, I figured out that I have no idea how the prices for the basic three MC modules came about. Other than that they seem to be enculturated from CT that is.

If I am getting the rules right (talking HG2 here), modularisation costs a percentage of the hull costs depending on the size of the module in dtons. But the way I read the rules, that cost reflects the modularisation cost to enable the main hull to take on modules. The cost of the basic three MC modules however suggests that these are naval constructs that have a base cost on-top of which prices of built-in elements are added: After all, both fuel and cargo module cost a substantial amount of Credits, which cannot come from the fuel tanks or cargo spaces built into them, because these "items" have no cost in HG2.

So, what is the base price for modularisation? Is it a fraction of the main hull alteration costs? Maybe 50 percent of that? None of that seems to really fit the canonical prices very well.

What do you think?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Modules generally cost whatever is in them, nothing more. E.g.: a module with two staterooms and some cargo space would cost MCr 1.

The standard modules use costs from CT, I believe too.

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.

 

[Condottiere]

Base cost is fifty thousand bux per tonne, modified by hull configuration, plus contents.

 

[Ursus Maior]

But isn't that the base cost you have to pay for the Modular Cutter itself to be able to be modular? Where in HG2 does it say what the modules themselves cost before adding stuff?

 

[Condottiere]

This depends on the author and editor.

Modules should be calculated separately, since they are exchangeable.

Modules are by default, unmotivated spacecraft.

 

[Reynard]

"modified by hull configuration"

That one I never considered and it makes sense. That would also suggest modules aren't interchangeable with vessels of different configurations.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

"modified by hull configuration"

That one I never considered and it makes sense. That would also suggest modules aren't interchangeable with vessels of different configurations.

Modules are internal, they just need a specified space. They do not care what the outside of the ship looks like.

 

[Reynard]

That's what I always believed. So are they modified by configuration?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No, I do not believe so. The rules don't really say any thing more than:

For example, a 100 ton hull normally costs MCr2. If 30% of the ship’s hull is to be made modular, then the cost of the hull is increased to MCr2.6, which is 130% of the original cost. This results in 30 tons of the ship’s components being easily swapped out from mission to mission.

I only specify the cost of the modular components, without hull or overhead.

Just like natural modules: turrets, barbettes, and bays.

 

[Ursus Maior]

No, I do not believe so. The rules don't really say any thing more than:

For example, a 100 ton hull normally costs MCr2. If 30% of the ship’s hull is to be made modular, then the cost of the hull is increased to MCr2.6, which is 130% of the original cost. This results in 30 tons of the ship’s components being easily swapped out from mission to mission.

Well, yeah, that's where I am at now. And that's the problem: If the module itself just costs as much as the sum of its components, a cargo or fuel model costs nothing. And that's not what HG2 (or any other book) says when noting the price for the famed "most common modules".

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That is just Ling-Standard Products protecting their profit margin.

Genuine Cutter™ Modules® are crafted to the highest quality and are always guaranteed to fit all LSP Cutters™, unlike cheap no-brand knock-offs. Accept no substitutes!

 

[Condottiere]

1. If the assumption is that unlike previous editions, cutter and other spacecraft modules are entirely internal, they can be configured anyway that the hatches are sized to fit in.

2. Don't double charge: the cost to add in modules goes with the spacecraft, the actual cost of constructing the module is separate.

 

[phavoc]

I suggest consulting GURPS Modular cutter. They had a plethora of different modules with costs associated to them.

 

[Ursus Maior]

1. If the assumption is that unlike previous editions, cutter and other spacecraft modules are entirely internal, they can be configured anyway that the hatches are sized to fit in.

2. Don't double charge: the cost to add in modules goes with the spacecraft, the actual cost of constructing the module is separate.

Thank you, this is how I understand the rules, yes. It would mean however that modular equipment is more the type of quickly removable fast-clamped units and less pre-equipped container like parts of the hull which you can roll in and out or dock to on the outside. The latter being, what I understood modules to be since CT.

A simple "an empty module shell costs dtons * 50,000 [or whatever] Credits an can be filled with equpment up to its dton limit" would have sufficed for me. Optimally that calculation would end up with prices for a 30 dton module filled fule or open for cargo being MCr1 or MCr 2 repectively. But that's a different question: Why do the standard modules from HG2 p.103 cost what they cost? :roll:

 

[Condottiere]

Never really tried to calculate the cost of modules, since you need to have an inkling how these costs are arrived at.

As regards to externally attached modules, that seems resolved with the Element Cruiser supplement, which I'll have to get some day.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But that's a different question: Why do the standard modules from HG2 p.103 cost what they cost? :roll:

Three modules are routinely available for the cutter.
The ATV module, which includes either a wheeled or a tracked ATV, masses 30 tons. It can deposit an A TV on a world surface, as well as pick it up again later. The module can serve as an ATV storage location, if desired. It costs MCr1.8.
The fuel module, with 30 tons of fuel tankage, serves as a fuel skimming vehicle and can be used to ferry fuel from point to point. It costs MCr1.
The open module is a customizable frame with 30 tons of excess space which can be allocated to passenger couches, fuel, cargo, cabins or staterooms. It costs MCr2.

Presumably they are just ad hoc values taken from thin air.

Note that this was for external modules with their own hull. Internal modules in MgT2 should be cheaper?

 

[Ursus Maior]

Presumably they are just ad hoc values taken from thin air.

Note that this was for external modules with their own hull. Internal modules in MgT2 should be cheaper?

1) They are in fact the exact prices from Classic Traveller, I looked into the starter box from the early 80s and the German translation respectively and that's the price from 35 years ago.

2) Well, it seems to me, that internal and external modules are a difference that wasn't around before this edition of Highguard. It seems to me that "external modules" could not be constructed under these rules since they're neither simply "modular hulls" nor yet "breakaway hulls".

 

[AnotherDilbert]

1) They are in fact the exact prices from Classic Traveller, I looked into the starter box from the early 80s and the German translation respectively and that's the price from 35 years ago.

Quite, that is why I quoted the prices from the CT LBBs. They were presumably taken from thin air then...

2) Well, it seems to me, that internal and external modules are a difference that wasn't around before this edition of Highguard. It seems to me that "external modules" could not be constructed under these rules since they're neither simply "modular hulls" nor yet "breakaway hulls".

Breakaway is the closest we can come to the classic cutter. If we don't care about streamlining we can just carry a pod in a Docking Clamp.

 

[Ursus Maior]

Breakaway hulls need to have separate bridges, however. And not being streamlined is a bad thing for a smallcraft that's supposedly the workhorse of known space.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Breakaway hulls need to have separate bridges, however.

Quite, but we can replace that with Virtual Crew software.

And not being streamlined is a bad thing for a smallcraft that's supposedly the workhorse of known space.

I agree that is unacceptable for an interface craft.