[FT]Modular Ships

>> Do you charge a points premium for reconfigurable ships ? In campaign
terms
>> they have to be more valuable, mass-for-mass, than an equivalent
sized
ship
>> of fixed design.
>
>Haven't really thought about it.  Good question, though, so I'll give
you
>an answer with a little bit of thought behind it.  :)

>My way of thinking would be that building a reconfigurable ship would
always
>involve a premium regardless of whether you charged an extra
percentage,
>because you'd have to always build more parts for the ship than the
ship
could
>ever use at one time.

Not neccessarily: Currently, the Royal Australian Navy has X number of
major

surface combatants, but only X/2 Close-in-Weapons Systems,
Surface-to-Air-
Missile Systems, Radar Absorbent Material Kits etc etc.

Ships that are in low-risk areas can operate without a lot of the
expensive 
stuff. Conversely, those that operate in high-risk areas get fitted out
with

the whole kit and caboodle (at leas, in theory...). In extended periods
of 
tension, we could (in theory again) buy more of the expensive bits in a
hurry, 
which you can't do with ships.

What this means in terms of a Full Thrust campaign is up to the
individual:
My 
own OU designs - the Freemantle/River class in the ship archive, and the
others 
that I've put on this list - have some deliberate "balancing" put in
them.
1) Constant size modules - you can't just bolt on whatever you want.
2) Size is 8 - this was *deliberately* chosen to preclude hanger bays
for 
fighters as being one of the modules. Maybe it could have been allowed,
but 
play-balance was something I was concerned about, and giving every
super-
destroyer in the OU fleet the ability to carry a fighter group was
something
I 
really didn't want.
3) The "Fluff" states that there aren't enough modules to go around ( 
in
2180, 
anyway ).   

>Reconfigurable warships should be more expensive than standard
>because of the increased access points needed in the wiring,cabling,
>ducting,plumbing and structural systems to allow them to be
>configurable.

But as soon as the mid-life refit occurs, they become quite a bit
cheaper.

>Lastly, the reconfigurable ship is less reliable because there
>are many more things to go wrong, but they are easier to fix because
>of all that accessability.

YMMV in either case. My own experience with Wet Navy vessels is that
modular
== 
reliable.

Have a squizz at http://www.armada.ch/e/2-00/005.htm and look for
"Cosys".

Actually they understate the case: the COSYS-100 series is for corvettes

(various versions have 1-4 consoles), but there's a COSYS-200 variant
that
will 
suit a small aircraft carrier ( 16+ consoles ). The only difference
between
the 
series is that for small ships you can get away with a smaller, cheaper
data

bus. The actual consoles are identical. The software is almost identical
too, 
just a few configuration tables changed. OK, a lot of tables changed.
But
99% 
of the code is common.
 
>There is a reason that no wet navy has tried this, even though it is
>nice on paper.

Ummm... the very successful MEKO classes of German Corvettes, Frigates
and 
Destroyers have been using this for years. And the Danish STANFLEX
corvettes

take this to extremes.
=====================================================================
WARNING -This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the 
personal use of the recipient(s) only.
Republication and re-dissemination, including posting to news 
groups or web pages, is strictly prohibited without the express
prior consent of
Thomson Legal & Regulatory Group Asia Pacific Ltd 
ACN 058 914 668
=====================================================================