size and price of advanced components

[Jak Nazryth]

This came up in another thread and I think the Mongoose guys can clarify.

When installing higher tech drives and power plants, you can reduce the required size but increase the cost.
High Guard MgT2, page 48 and 49
Since cost of a drive is based on tonnage, is the final price based on the default size or the new modified size?
Example
A 200 ton ship wants a Jump 2 and Thrust 2 and is TL 14 design.
You want to take take 2 advantages for each dive by reducing the size.
You can reduce each size by 20% but you pay and additional 25% more for the drives.

Jump Drive (2) = 5% of the hull size, so a Jump 2 Drive takes 15 tons. (10+5 per the rules page 15)
Maneuver Drives thrust 2 = 2% of the hull size, so a thrust 2 M-Drive takes 4 tons.

By taking size reduction twice (page 48) your J-Drive now takes up 12 tons
By taking size reduction twice (page 49) your M-Drive now takes up 3.2 tons

Question. In both cases this reduction is a 25% cost increase, but since the price of a drive is based on tonnage, do you calculate the price of the drives on the orignal size BEFORE the size reduction or AFTER the size reduction?

Here is the difference
J-Drive based on original size = 37.5 MCr (with 25% price increase) J-Drive based on modified size = 30 MCr ( with 25% price increase)
You can do the math for the M-Drives.
this will also affect power plants or anything else that the price is based on tonnage, when you can reduce size based on advantages.

So which is correct, base price on original tonnage or modified tonnage?

Thanks

 

[Condottiere]

Does technology get cheaper and smaller every generation?

We don't base weapon systems on volume, so the default response is that you use the base cost.

It was the only way it made sense when I increased the size for the budget models.

 

[AndrewW]

Question. In both cases this reduction is a 25% cost increase, but since the price of a drive is based on tonnage, do you calculate the price of the drives on the orignal size BEFORE the size reduction or AFTER the size reduction?

So which is correct, base price on original tonnage or modified tonnage?

Already answered the other thread, but it's based on the tonnage, not base tonnage.

 

[DivineWrath]

I can testify that the costs are based upon current tonnage. I analyzed all the ships a while back, and current tonnage was the only that the numbers lined up correctly.

 

[Condottiere]

If you want to penalize people for choosing more capable engines, and let's say reward them for buying junk, this doesn't really work.

 

[bluekieran]

If you want to penalize people for choosing more capable engines, and let's say reward them for buying junk, this doesn't really work.

Definitely. Take the standard Jump-2 drive, TL11, in Far Trader. The ship is already TL12 due to it's power plant, so increasing the drive to TL12 and giving it a 10% size reduction for a 10% cost increase is basically 1.5dT free cargo space.

 

[Condottiere]

I'm not against giving a discount based on improved manufacturing processes, everything else remaining equal, but in terms of game balance, you can't make them both smaller and cheaper.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm not against giving a discount based on improved manufacturing processes, everything else remaining equal, but in terms of game balance, you can't make them both smaller and cheaper.

TL is not the same.

A current 200 hp car engine is lighter, smaller, cheaper, and cleaner than a 200 hp engine from the 70s.

 

[Condottiere]

This has more to do with game design balance.

The current one for differing technology level manufacturing processes may be too simplistic to allow it.