Re: [ft]modular ships

--- mary <r2bell@home.com> wrote:
...
> Before I respond to this, I have already accepted
> modular weaponry,
XXX
     Half the battle is won.
XXX

> but I will probably never accept reconfigurable
> structure.  
XXX
     My point of view is:   Consider we are talking
about an airplane with eight engines, if we install
only 6, the planes performance will be reduced, but
it will still fly.   All the hardware necessary
for the additional two engines is installed.
XXX

> 
> You cannot protect the bolts from damage. The damage
> is the result of
> one section being hit and accelerating with respect
> to the other.  
XXX
     I think you are getting too close to reality,
and not remaining in the more abstract and simplified
world of FT.
XXX

>The
> only solution is to add more bolts, which makes
> changing the
> configuration harder.  
XXX
     It is only a matter of putting more trained
people on the job and an undefined timeframe.
XXX

>The best useful solution is
> to make the modules
> very small with respect to the rest of the ship to
> keep the forces
> down.  
XXX
     Making small modules is better used as a 
game device to control the weapons content of 
the individual module.	 (A house rule idea.)
In game terms, one mass 30 module is the same
as 3 mass 10 modules.	Though the 3 mass 10s
will have at least 2 connections each while 
the mass 30 could get by with 2 or more.
XXX

> I'm curious, if you protect the data
> connections within the
> structure of the ship, how do you get at them to
> disconnect them? 
XXX
     The 'core systems' rules are an example of 
this.	The core systems require additional die
rolls before they can be affected at the threshold
check.
Assuming the 'Bolts' extend in the 'core system'
areas, they would be accessable as would 
necessary power, air, ect.
XXX

...
> > 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.
XXX
     Even the weakest hull at 10% is able to 
absorb the greatest weapon hits in the game,
until the structure is destroyed (hull boxes 
gone).	 
     If you design a mass 100 ship with thrust
6, you will generate a certain mass and point
value.	 Should you choose to fly the ship 
around at thrust 2, the hull mass/strength
will not change.
XXX

> (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)
XXX
     Damage boxes are a function of hull mass/
strength plus purchased armor boxes.   Cargo
(unused mass) does not add the the hull and 
does not cost points.
XXX

Bye for now,
John L.