Re: [ft]modular ships

John Leary wrote:
> 
>      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.

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!
>      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.

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)