[FT] Modular warships

> -----Original Message-----
[snip]

> The difficulty arises when someone wants to replace a weapon with
[Bri] Makes sense, but you assume you start the design with
large weapons first. What if you start with a design of 18 class-1s and
want replace them with a all-arc Class-4 beam?

[snip]

> In my opinion the core module should be at least 40% of the
[Bri] Agreed. But this is usually reached by hull (min 10%), FTL (10%),
and MD (10% for thrust 2).

> and there are (depending on preferences) 6 or 8
[Bri] Then there would be a similar limitation on dedicated weapons
placement. But this does not seem to be the case. Part of it depends
on how you view the weapons module and multi-arc weapons. Multi-
Arc weapons may pop out from the hull on stems to allow the turret
to rotate fully; they may be bulges/blisters turrets that allow greater
arcs of fire, or they may be weapons arrays over the surface of the ship. Any
of these options may be modular as well. With the first two options, the
turret is part of the cost of the weapon system. Thus the turrets are fixed on
the module base which is bolted on the ship hardpoint. For option 3, each arc
represents a module that is attached. FT abstracts this into the appropriate
class of weapon.

> The maximum size of a module connecting to a core module's
[Bri] I would disagree here. Not all airplane pylon mounts are of the
same size/shape/mass. But logistics would be easier if modules
were of the same size/shape/mass. I would think that most modules
would be mounted in the sides of ships with turrets sticking out to provide
arcs, or on pods (ESU designs are good candidates for having wing pods. See
Novgorod, Volga, Voroshilev, Petrograd, Rostov, etc.)

> The core module's FTL drive must be large enough for maximum total
[Bri] Agreed. The basic design needs to have 10% total mass in hull
and have FTL and MD set for the ship with maximum mass of modules accounted
for. Screens if part of the core should also take into account the maximum
mass of the modules when figuring their mass. It might be a good idea to make
each module include 1 hull box for every 10 mass (or fraction thereof) of the
module (This would be in addition to the minimum 10% required by the overall
ship design); so a mass 10 module would have space for 9 mass of systems and 1
mass of hull (access tunnels, etc.). I would keep the crew factors to the core
of the ship.

[snip]

> Modules are designed and built using the same rules for starships,
[Bri] See above.

> A core module with both top and bottom
[Bri] Disagree, unless you want to do the same thing for core
systems. I.e. the hull of the ship blocks additional arcs.

> For the purposes of allocating damage, the modules are ordered by
[Bri] I disagree here. I think that it would be better to keep things
simple. Modular systems will only be an advantage in a campaign, or between
games, so that is where any penalty should occur. Perhaps, they should be more
expensive, but take less time to
install? If you use multiple module sizes/shapes/masses, then
it may be more likely that you are out of a particular module
type when you need repairs/refits.
If you need to have a penalty in the game, perhaps when a system that is part
of a module fails a threshold check, make another one for the module itself.
If the module fails, then no system in that module may be used until the
module, itself, is repaired. Modules may NOT be the target of needle attacks
(only the systems they contain). A module must make a threshold check if a
system it contains is destroyed by a needle attack. Draw a line around systems
that are part of a particular module.

[snip]

> Sincerely;