Been reading the debate on modular ships, and have a few questions-
1-Is the debate about a normal ship hull with the weapons in moduals, as
explaned by others as in present ships?
2-Or are the ideas more along the lines of a ship as a spinal core with
everything attached? If it`s the first, the dissadvantages may be minimal,
along the lines of a
threshold check on a modual disabling all weapons/equipment in that
modual. Also, I`d say that for the first design that only the
weapons/electronics
may be altered. The drives/hull etc are fixed.
For the second idea, I`d say that virtually everything is able to be changed,
including drives (but excluding FTL). This would allow more flexibility, but
make the ship more vulnerable. After all, the ship isn`t built as a one piece
vessel, but as a group of separate parts, increasing the chance of literally
"blowing off" the separate sections, and losing whatever was installed in than
section. My reasoning being that the ship would only be as strong as the
connections between the different sections. After all, if you design
everything to be removable, you are introducing a week point into the ship. I
would never use these ship myself, because I don`t want to use ships that are
weeker than nessasery. Make sence to anybody else?
> --- bif smith <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
XXX I think the majority for posters are in agreement with this as the basic
concept. XXX
> 2-Or are the ideas more along the lines of a ship as
XXX This has been mentioned mostly in the form
of the 'additional thrust' module. Both concepts
are valid, the problem is in the form of execution of the concept. XXX
> If it`s the first, the dissadvantages may be
XXX The 'module loss' check yould be better implimented under a core systems
check rather
than a threshold check. Reason: The design
would have multiple various 'feeds' into and out of the module to prevent this
from being
a problem. Agreed, the basic hull should
not change, this concept is the stuffing of a weapons bay into the cargo hold
of a freighter. XXX
> For the second idea, I`d say that virtually
XXX While the logic is there, the counter is
simple: Since the designers know of the problem,
the 'connection' points are better protected than
the majority of the ship systems. By this I
mean the 'bolts' are 'protected' by main structural
members of the ship. This form of protection
does not draw any mass/point penalty because to
destroy the 'bolt' you must destroy the main structure of the ship.
Change trains! As far as thrust goes... The game logic of high 'G' ships are
required to have weak hulls (or not carry a useful payload) is rather
strange. However, nothing can be done about that.
The bolt on engine module must be handled in a different way. The ship must be
designed for the largest possible thrust and payload the ship may be called
upon to carry.
DISADVANTAGES: 1) Must have an oversized structure. 2) Must buy additional
modules. 3) Limited firing arcs for the module weapons. (The forward module
mount can fire forward and one of the broadsides. The aft mount can fire aft
and one of the broadsides. All other mounts can only be 2 arc broadside. 4)
The ship structure would not be protected by module armor, the structure and
armor would share hits equally. 5) Such a ship would not be much faster to
turn around than a normal ship after having taken
battle damage. The module replacement would
be fast enough, the repair of the damaged
structure still requires time. Unless you
are willing to send the ship into battle with half the first row of damage
boxes shot off. 6) Probably 10% of the module mass is for the module
structure. 7) Only weapons mounted on the ship structure could have more that
three arc coverage. (this would include PDS) This is the penalty for the
modular ability as I see it. XXX
> Make sence to anybody else?
XXX This is sceince fiction, there is no question
that the concept 'can be done'. The questions are;
How will the concept be implemented? What points costs are required? What
limitations on design are required?
Comments?
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
Before I respond to this, I have already accepted modular weaponry, but I will
probably never accept reconfigurable structure.
You cannot protect the bolts from damage. The damage is the result of one
section being hit and accelerating with respect to the other. The only
solution is to add more bolts, which makes changing the configuration harder.
The best useful solution is to make the modules very small with respect to the
rest of the ship to keep the forces down. I'm curious, if you protect the data
connections within the structure of the ship, how do you get at them to
disconnect them?
> Change trains!
Too much of the ship is dedicated to engines and the structure needed to
resist the axial load produced by running the engines up to full thrust. The
extra structure does not help in combat because weapon
strikes are almost entirely off-axis loads.
(Game terms: damage boxes are awarded for every mass point that you do not use
for anything else, but it costs NPV because it does something useful)
> --- mary <r2bell@home.com> wrote:
...
> Before I respond to this, I have already accepted
XXX
> but I will probably never accept reconfigurable
XXX
My point of view is: Consider we are talking
about an airplane with eight engines, if we install only 6, the planes
performance will be reduced, but
it will still fly. All the hardware necessary
for the additional two engines is installed. XXX
> You cannot protect the bolts from damage. The damage
XXX I think you are getting too close to reality, and not remaining in the
more abstract and simplified world of FT. XXX
> The
XXX It is only a matter of putting more trained people on the job and an
undefined timeframe. XXX
> The best useful solution is
XXX Making small modules is better used as a game device to control the
weapons content of the individual module. (A house rule idea.) In game terms,
one mass 30 module is the same as 3 mass 10 modules. Though the 3 mass 10s
will have at least 2 connections each while the mass 30 could get by with 2 or
more. XXX
> I'm curious, if you protect the data
XXX The 'core systems' rules are an example of this. The core systems require
additional die rolls before they can be affected at the threshold check.
Assuming the 'Bolts' extend in the 'core system' areas, they would be
accessable as would necessary power, air, ect. XXX
...
> > The bolt on engine module must be handled in a
XXX Even the weakest hull at 10% is able to absorb the greatest weapon hits in
the game, until the structure is destroyed (hull boxes gone). If you design a
mass 100 ship with thrust 6, you will generate a certain mass and point value.
Should you choose to fly the ship
around at thrust 2, the hull mass/strength
will not change. XXX
> (Game terms: damage boxes are awarded for every mass
XXX
Damage boxes are a function of hull mass/
strength plus purchased armor boxes. Cargo
(unused mass) does not add the the hull and does not cost points. XXX
Bye for now,
Greetings,
My Unofficial GZG Corporation ITTT also uses modular ships.
Now the only place that modular ships would have an advantage is in a campaign
setting. The point cost for normal games should not be adjusted
for modular design, as it has no impact on a tactical scale.
Most of the modules that I use are cargo modules for quick exchange at cargo
drops. Weapons modules can be used instead, but extra care has to be taken due
to the nature of the module (power requirements, check sensor feeds, etc.).
For strategic (campagin) level, a 5% additional cost for the basic ship design
should handle the situation. I would set the time to change modules to be the
same as repair of systems that were damaged by
damage/threshold
checks/needle weapons, or a minimum of one campaign turn. This way, the
ship cannot be reconfigured for "free", but costs time to do the conversion
and during that time, the ship cannot engage in combat. The advantage, as was
stated, is that a whole ship need not be built to adapt the ship.
I would say that some things cannot be changed by modules:
- Engines
- Ship Size (mass/hull boxes)
- Streamlining
- Screens (requires projectors from all over the ship)
- Cloak (requires projectors from all over the ship)
- Spinal mount weapons (Nova Cannon, Wave Gun)
- Fighter Bay (unless module is mass 9 or over)
I would also say that systems cannot be fitted into multiple modules. That is
if you have mass 4 modules, you cannot use 2 modules to mount a
class-3
beam with 3 arcs. If you have mass 6 modules, you can do so.
---
From: "mary" <r2bell@home.com>
> Before I respond to this, I have already accepted modular weaponry,
Fair enough. My own designs were made also on that basis - ie
no change to thrust, ftl, hull or armour.
The reason the River class (without a module) has a thrust of 5 is
> John Leary wrote:
If you replace the two engines with an equal weight of weapons or armor, it
will not get off the ground. In a ship, swapping out engines for weapons is
also prevented, but this time it is due to the engines' placement in the
bowels of the ship
A similar argument goes against replacing cargo space with weapons modules,
because weapons need to be surface mounted and cargo tends to be empty space
enclosed by the minimum ammount of hull (exception: SML's lend themselves for
emplacement in cargo ships' holds). But this is a
non-issue because, unlike Brilliant Lances and Star Cruiser, FT ignores
the compromises required for hull geometry.