Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
You don't need to allocate a full tonne for fuel.
And it's an overall cost, since both sides need connectors.
And it's an overall cost, since both sides need connectors.
Okay, say your group wants to sell their starship...
- Thread starter Galadrion
- Start date
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
True -- but if each section pays 2%, then the whole hull is legal whether or not they are joined up. At one point I was in the habit of including 2% in every hull I built & claiming a 'standardized interface' that allowed an arbitrary number (and combination - Mongoose has made no attempt to limit this) of ships to join together. 'Virtual Crew' and 'No Bridge' options are your friend.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
This whole process consumes 2% of the combined hull tonnage for the extra bulkheads and connections needed, and costs MCr2 per ton consumed. Hull points of each section will be proportionate to the total Hull points of the ship.
Likely proportionate for the extra bulkheads and connections, as well.
Likely proportionate for the extra bulkheads and connections, as well.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. The problem with breakaways is that it can be subject to real abuse on design.
2. Which is why I stick to proportionate to actual tonnage in each part thereof.
3. The one distinct instance where this is canonically supported is the distribution of hull points, which is why a hundred kilotonne design is optimal, since the sum of the whole is greater than it's (a)parts.
4. However, for hardpoints, I'd base it on exact tonnage of each part, which may require conversion to firmpoints, if smaller than a hundred tonnes.
5. And, if only to balance this out, costs and tonnage for the breakaway connectors are evenly spread out, as well.
6. Whether you can attach a breakaway to any other breakaway, I'd say that the designer would have to have designed a subsequent spacecraft to specifically be able to connect to a specific, or minimally, standardized, spacecraft configuration.
2. Which is why I stick to proportionate to actual tonnage in each part thereof.
3. The one distinct instance where this is canonically supported is the distribution of hull points, which is why a hundred kilotonne design is optimal, since the sum of the whole is greater than it's (a)parts.
4. However, for hardpoints, I'd base it on exact tonnage of each part, which may require conversion to firmpoints, if smaller than a hundred tonnes.
5. And, if only to balance this out, costs and tonnage for the breakaway connectors are evenly spread out, as well.
6. Whether you can attach a breakaway to any other breakaway, I'd say that the designer would have to have designed a subsequent spacecraft to specifically be able to connect to a specific, or minimally, standardized, spacecraft configuration.
Similar threads
