Soo.... Airlock freebies

[shirgall]

The latest interpretation I read was that the free airlocks fall into the +/- 10% for ship deck plans.
We'll have to see if that changes in the upcoming HG review.

My house rule is that I differentiate between pressure doors for bulkheads and full on airlocks which have additional equipment for safe ingress/egress. Pressure doors and cargo doors are emergency exits ("alarm will sound") or for use in atmo/hangar bay. True airlocks have to be paid for in spreadsheet tonnage.

 

[Condottiere]

Where's that ten percent variable coming from?

Is it fuel tanks?

Then, we can calculate more finely actual fuel requirements for transitions.

Is it engineering?

We tend to pay per tonne for the volume that engineering takes up.

Though, we could sardinize staterooms, with little consequence.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Where's that ten percent variable coming from?

Is it fuel tanks?

Then, we can calculate more finely actual fuel requirements for transitions.

Is it engineering?

We tend to pay per tonne for the volume that engineering takes up.

Though, we could sardinize staterooms, with little consequence.

It's part of creating deck plans and is nebulous in my opinion. High Guard says the one airlock per 100 dtons is free, but I personally don't believe it should be no tonnage.

 

[Condottiere]

That's why it's absurd, and can't bear scrutiny.

Initially, considering the two percent allocated to bridges, a lot could be assigned to that, such as ship's locker, and the additional airlocks, if not taken to extremes.

Outside of which, the plumbing costs a default two hundred kilostarbux per two tonnes.

If applied to a primitive planetoid, accounting for, but not actually installing a free airlock per hundred tonnes, becomes an infinite money machine.

 

[shirgall]

That's why it's absurd, and can't bear scrutiny.

Initially, considering the two percent allocated to bridges, a lot could be assigned to that, such as ship's locker, and the additional airlocks, if not taken to extremes.

Outside of which, the plumbing costs a default two hundred kilostarbux per two tonnes.

If applied to a primitive planetoid, accounting for, but not actually installing a free airlock per hundred tonnes, becomes an infinite money machine.

Don't forget that up to 25% of the displacement for some spaces can be allocated to access.

 

[hopsnbaer]

Think of it as the difference in variable components from different manufacturers. It really makes no difference to the narrative except to help you fit your floor plan. The game isn't designed to be a simulation.

 

[LangyMD]

They should redo all of the published ships to meet what their rules say. The rules don't exist if even the company that makes the rules can't use them right. Obviously though, that would be whenever they update the books that have those ships in them.

Frankly, they should just add a rule saying "Subject to GM discretion, a ship's final size and cost can he adjusted by +/- 10% of what the design rules say, as different manufacturers and engineers will design things more or less optimally". Then the ships can retain their designs and people can stop complaining that they're not perfectly rules legal (and they can simulate the fact that not every stateroom is going to take up exactly the same amount of tonnage from every manufacturer, etc).

 

[Condottiere]

You can easily justify varying deckplans, if only to fit in access and odds and ends, because the roof height isn't fixed.

Access, twenty five percent or otherwise, would be to specific spacecraft components, hence accessways within engineering, and corridors to staterooms; they don't cost anything, nor take up extra space.

Default bridges should have quite a lot of empty space, in order to be able to access controls and monitoring equipment.