Re: [FT\DS2] Fleet and Army sizes for games

--- Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
> G'day,
> 
>  >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.
XXX
     With luck, the future will be able to design
to a standard.	 The only thing a module should
need (in space) is; air, water, power, and a 
sensor/FCS data line.	There would be at least
two of these connections on a 'warship' module,
and the locations would be fore and aft.
XXX

> If they're dedicated modules though that slip full
> made and whole onto a 
> pre-existing spin, then why? The modular stuff I've
> got from my "penguins 
> in space" is much more along the lines of - same
> bridge bit and engine bit 
> always, but forward bays are interchangeable between
> cargo space, weapon 
> loaded and hangar bar space. They just slot in and
> get locked down - 
XXX
     I would tend to agree, the sensors, 1 FCS, 
engines, and hull would be fixed values for the 
ship.	The modules are placed into 'cargo space'
and could have only limited effect on the ship
itself.  More on this later.
XXX

> I have 
> fiddled with doing thresholds on the joining points
> and it can be very 
> funny to suddenly see a row of hull boxes and a
> quarter of you ship 'float' 
> away ;)
XXX
     The 'cargo' would not be able to take any
'hull' boxes with it if it should be 'disconnected'
from the hull.	 I can accept the premise that 
the module can (and possibly should) have a 
weak (10% of mass) hull of its own.   These
hull boxes would be added to the ships hull
during combat.
XXX

> 
>  >So a reconfigurable hull is massx2 instead of
> massx1, must set
>  >aside 10% of mass for accessways/connection
> points, and add 1 to the
>  >die for threshold and damage control rolls.
> 
> I think this is too excessive all up. Why 2xmass
> when they have to have the 
> extra mass as well, ducting is ducting in my view
> (now all the engineers 
> get free hit at Beth) and the +1 seems a bit painful
> if applied to all 
> systems not just the interchangeable ones. But
> that's just me.
XXX
     Just 'me too' Beth.   I would think the penalty
should be not more than one mass point for the 
additional hatches and wiring, if at all.   
The additional module costs for one ship will
be a large enough penalty.   The other thing one
must consider if the limited arc of fire for an
imbedded module weapons mount, I would think that
180 degrees would be the maximum.   The fore/aft
arcs are pretty much off limits to the bay mounts.
     A single ship might have to build:
2 hanger bays,
2 beam bays,
2 SLM bays,
2 Pulse torp bays,
2 ADAF bays,
This would be reduced if one was willing to mount
mixed weapons bays.   Still, building at least 
five types of bay would bring a heavy points cost
to the ship.   
     A few of these things could be of use in a
secondary theater of war but faced with real 
warships in primary operations; too much (point)
cost, not enough ability, underutilized assets.
XXX
> Cheers
> 
> Beth

Bye for now,
John L.