Merchant Hulls

4 posts ยท Feb 2 1997 to Feb 9 1997

From: Samuel Penn <sam@b...>

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 05:46:21 -0500

Subject: Merchant Hulls

I've always been under the impression that Merchant hulls are always
considered to have four rows of damage boxes. Tried to double check this
today, and the only rules I can find seem rather vague. They mention that all
Merchant ships are of the same class, regardless of size, but only seems to
list the required number of rows for the military classes.

It makes sense that they'd be more susceptible to threshold checks (fewer
redundant systems), but I'm no longer sure that I'm right.

Any ideas anyone?

From: CMitch5046@a...

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:28:31 -0500

Subject: Re: Merchant Hulls

In a message dated 02/02/97  20:17:07, you write:

<<
I've always been under the impression that Merchant hulls are always
considered to have four rows of damage boxes. Tried to double check this
today, and the only rules I can find seem rather vague. They mention that all
Merchant ships are of the same class, regardless of size, but only seems to
list the required number of rows for the military classes. >>

There are merchant ship designs given in MT The Free Trader escort has 2 rows,
The armed Merchantman cruiser has 3 and
the Escort/Patrol Carrier has 4 exactly as per naval vessels and for
some reason the Merchant Tug cruiser only has 2 rows ( Obviously the other
systems
are shielded by those over sized engines  :-J

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 05:08:53 -0500

Subject: Re: Merchant Hulls

> On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 CMitch5046@aol.com wrote:

> There are merchant ship designs given in MT

But of course the Escort/Patron Carrier _is_ a military vessel, not a
Merchant.

From: Samuel Penn <sam@b...>

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:24:53 -0500

Subject: Re: Merchant Hulls

> In message <970203185826_881864381@emout04.mail.aol.com> Craig wrote:

> There are merchant ship designs given in MT

So they are. I never thought of checking MT (just reread the main rules
several times instead). Thanks.