Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Starships: Star/raft

V. If you break apart the starship components, you have to figure out how to reintegrate them.

W. In our case, without a breakaway hull, you have to coordinate them.

X. The control centre that has jump controls, needs to be connected to the jump drive.

Y. The jump drive needs to be connected to the fuel tanks.

Z. And your hulls sections are fifty tonnes and under.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Star/raft

1. A ship can have a bridge one size smaller than the Bridges table indicates, halving the cost of the bridge.

2. This one could be a little tough to interpret.

3. In theory, a ninety nine tonne smallcraft could have a smaller bridge of three tonnes.

4. Do these have jump drive controls?

5. Seems unlikely.

6. If ten tonnes is default for jump drive controls, than the smallest bridge would be six tonnes.

7. And squeezing in those jump drive controls may be responsible for an overall performance degradation of minus one.

8. And here's where a specialist command centre comes in.

9. One specializing in just jump.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Star/raft

A. Cost of a specialist command centre seems very much dependent on the hull it's installed in.

B. At a quarter megstarbux per hundred tonnes.

C. That doesn't seem disputed.

D. Size is either based on the default primary bridge, basically the primary hull.

E. Or, if subdivided, on the secondary hull.

F. Which you could easily conclude from the cost.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I think there is an issue where people don’t understand the limitations imposed by firmpoints on smallcraft

 

[Condottiere]

That's the tension between realism (for science fiction) and gameplay balance.

I'm pretty sure we can come up with lots of reasons for said limitations on weapon systems for any hull below hundred tonnes, but whether they seem plausible to the intended audience, would be another matter.

There are ways to bypass them, or just make fun of the absurdity of the rule(s) - in case you're wondering, I think I was the first to point out that according to the then published rules, missiles had the same range limitations as the energy weapon systems, and by default, weren't smart.

That got fixed, by exception.

We also could install a fifty tonne bay in a smallcraft, though that might be limited to missiles and torpedoes; I forget.

And then two firmpoints in exchange for a barbette, now three.

Why are energy weapons downclocked on smallcraft?

Doesn't really make sense, except in terms of gameplay you'd stand off, and optimize number of weapon systems over total tonnage committed.

Since both firmpointed and hardpointed turrets cost the same, use the same amount of power, and take up the same amount of volume, why can't both not have four weapon systems installed?

As I said, you could rage against the dying of the light, laugh at the absurdity, or just accept it.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

That's the tension between realism (for science fiction) and gameplay balance.

I'm pretty sure we can come up with lots of reasons for said limitations on weapon systems for any hull below hundred tonnes, but whether they seem plausible to the intended audience, would be another matter.

There are ways to bypass them, or just make fun of the absurdity of the rule(s) - in case you're wondering, I think I was the first to point out that according to the then published rules, missiles had the same range limitations as the energy weapon systems, and by default, weren't smart.

That got fixed, by exception.

We also could install a fifty tonne bay in a smallcraft, though that might be limited to missiles and torpedoes; I forget.

And then two firmpoints in exchange for a barbette, now three.

Why are energy weapons downclocked on smallcraft?

Doesn't really make sense, except in terms of gameplay you'd stand off, and optimize number of weapon systems over total tonnage committed.

Since both firmpointed and hardpointed turrets cost the same, use the same amount of power, and take up the same amount of volume, why can't both not have four weapon systems installed?

As I said, you could rage against the dying of the light, laugh at the absurdity, or just accept it.

“And then two firmpoints in exchange for a barbette, now three”
- Yes, that change bothered me too.

“Since both firmpointed and hardpointed turrets cost the same, use the same amount of power, and take up the same amount of volume, why can't both not have four weapon systems installed?”
-Not entirely true “Power requirements of the weapon are reduced by 25% (rounding up).” (HG2024). We don’t know if they take up the same volume (fixed mounts have zero volume). The cost is not really an issue (can brush it off as needing different target sensors and control servos for adjacent/close range. I do think that firmpoint weapons need their own table in HG and a special turret (the point defense turret works well for them)

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Also, I don’t think you can install a small weapon bay in a smallcraft, as it needs the hardpoint only available at 100-tons (HG2024)

 

[Condottiere]

Bomber

The seventy–ton Bomber is little more than a flying missile bay, but is capable of delivering a withering hail of fire for its tonnage. It has no anti–ship weapons other than its missiles, so it is normally escorted by smaller fighters. It also suffers from a severe lack of ammunition, only 4 salvos, limiting its endurance in battle.


Mongoose First High Guard page ninety six

 

[Condottiere]

As regards turrets, I'm pretty sure when I was deep diving into that particular aspect, single weapon system turret does not define as a weapon (system).

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Design inconsistency?
While I recognize that the Bomber has a missile bay, I don’t think that design survived into 2E (it is not in HG2024 or the Small Craft Catalogue)

 

[Condottiere]

It didn't.

But I think it was one of the factors that pushed the separation of weapon systems into hard and firm pointed variants, in the next edition.

'Cos, if you have a hard point, you can have a bay.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Bridging The Gap

1. Always thought two percent of volume wasn't kosher.

2. It's not really explained why it costs a semimegastarbux per hundred tonnes to wire up a hull.

3. Nor, why cockpitting is basically free.

4. One assumes that repairing the hull, includes the bridge wiring.

5. Why would having additional bridges require a separate network, that has to be paid for?

6. When you could hook them up to the existing one.

7. How does redundancy work, since with starwarships, you might want to triplicate the wiring?

8. Why not pro rata the wiring for sub hundred tonnes?

9. Do modules need to be wired up, considering if they are not installed, it's basically an empty space, like a cargo hold?

 

[Condottiere]

Startrucks: Venture Class

1. I really wanted to try this out.

2. Unlike starwarships, I can't claim having thought it up by myself.

3. Admittingly, it came to me when I came across an announcement for new games.

4. Being that close to Star Trek, it was irresistible not to use it.

5. Coincidentally, starstruck.

6. Anyway, it was time to reassess the class.

7. The cheapest hull was to plan a void in a planetoid.

8. Scaling upwards from one hundred twenty parsec tonnes, doesn't change the cost of a budgetted, inefficient, jump drive from that of one of increased size.

9. Just in terms of a per tonne cost, since you can reduce from a modified twelve and a half tonnes, to the minimum ten tonnes,

 

[Condottiere]

Startrucks: Venture Class

A. With one exception, I've never come across a cheaper jump drive than nine megastarbux.

B. And that would be the one shot variant of the above.

C. And however you look at it, outside a specific niche use, three jumps aren't really worth it, even at a quarter of the sticker price.

D. I'm sure that you could refurbish them, to reset to minus two modifier on engineering.

E. But it's unlikely worth the cost (to do so).

F. So, you tend to need to be rather clear as to what role is only likely to occur three times, over a reasonable time period.

 

[Condottiere]

Startrucks: Venture Class

G. You could have a single one hundred twenty tonne hull.

H. Originally, I thought a flying saucer would be the most likely prototype.

I. However, I'm beginning to think, outside of the planetoid (option).

J. You could have a catamaran or outrigger.

K. That means you could have more standardized hull configuration(s), and weight(s).

 

[Condottiere]

Startrucks: Venture Class

L. A planetoid has a twenty percent volume waste.

M. On the other hand, that ninety six tonnes usable volume costs me four hundred eighty kilostarbux.

N. Free gravitation included.

O. Default one hundred twenty tonne standard configuration, gravitated, would cost me six megastarbux.

P. Or three megastarbux, ungravitated.

 

[Sigtrygg]

A couple of vids you have likely seen but are worth putting out there:

 

[Condottiere]

Probably not.

I had to reboot my Youtube history, and had to spread the workload over several laptops, since ye primary computer is in dispersed configuration on a test bench, which apparently is great for (air) cooling, but has the hard disks spread across the desk(top).

And it seems I'm missing one, and it might be with the case, which at the moment I can't remember where it might be.

Energy beams are light speed, or close to, presumably.

Sustained beam, by implication, only seems to be the beam laser.

Dogfighting, tends to imply you can cycle the weapon systems every six seconds.

As opposed to default space combat, at every six minutes.

Does this matter?

Actually, yes - since you need to draw from the power pool, that regenerates only every six minutes.

If you're really into electronic warfare, you need a five kilotonne hull; one reason I insist that the Confederation prefers super destroyers.

 

[Condottiere]

Startrucks: Venture Class

Q. If we manage to keep the primary hull at fifty tonnes, we can keep the navigation controls to single cockpit, at ten kilostarbux, each.

R. Jump specialist control centre would be six tonnes, and since the primary hull is going to be less than a hundred tonnes, quarter of a megastarbux.

S. The monolith planetoid is going to be at least a semimegastarbux, depending on interpretation of usable volume versus total volume, specific to planetoids in general.

T. If not, to avoid a megastarbux for two hundred tonne hull, one hundred tonne planetoid, and twenty tonnes of external cargo.

U. Optionally, twenty tonne gig, for atmospheric connector.

 

[Condottiere]

Startrucks: Venture Class

V. There would be a lot of bunkerage, basically forty percent.

W. The idea would be that you have enough to get to Alpha Centauri, and come back, without the need to refuel.

X. For the initial trip, since I'm going to assume that this is taking place during in a competitive atmosphere, to get there first, and hopefully, come back and brag about it.

Y. There probably is, right now, an early prototype of a jump drive, in Area Fifty One.

Z. Together with an early prototype of a factor one manoeuvre drive.