RE: [FT] Modular warships

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Bell [SMTP:rlbell@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 10:12 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Modular warships
> 
[snip]

>     The difficulty arises when someone wants to replace a weapon with
> another weapon that does not conform to these assumptions.  My
proposal
> is that you can replace a class-n beam with two class-(n-1) beams that
> fire in the same arc as the original weapon (ie if you replace the
> Komarov's class-4 beams with 16 class-1's, they only fire into two
> arcs).  This represents the assumption that larger beam batteries are
> recessed into the hull further than smaller batteries.  As the ganged
> weapons share a mounting, they can only be fired at one target, and
are
> disabled/repaired as if they were one system (the more realistic
method
> is that if any fail, the mount fails and no fire is possible until at
> least one is repaired).  To represent the shared mounting, ganged
> class-1's can not destroy more than one fighter or missile, but do
roll
> all the dice for the attempt.  As a FC can replace a class-1, the
ganged
> mount can include its own FC.
> 
>     Any class-n beam can be replaced by 2^(n-1) submunition clusters
> firing through any of the beam's arcs (must be chosen at installation
> [before the scenario starts]), but no more than 2^(n-2) can be fired
at
> once (minimum of 2).	A class-n beam can be replaced with 2^(n-1) PDS
> units that are limited to the arc of the original beam battery, but
they
> can engage multiple fighters, and get rerolls.  The last substitution
is
> the one-for-one replacement of a class-2 beam with an ADFC (limited to
> the arc of the class-2).  There is no additional cost for socketting
> equipment mountings.
> 
[Bri] Makes sense, but you assume you start the design with 
large weapons first. What if you start with a design of 18 class-1s and 
want replace them with a all-arc Class-4 beam?

[snip]

>     In my opinion the core module should be at least 40% of the
maximum
> size of the ship, 
> 
[Bri] Agreed. But this is usually reached by hull (min 10%), FTL (10%),
and MD (10% for thrust 2).

> and there are (depending on preferences) 6 or 8
> possible places to mount modules to the core.  They are one for each
> firing arc, plus top and bottom, or bow, stern, port, starbord, top
and
> bottom.  Also no single module can be larger than the core module in a
> military vessel.  Merchant container ships are two drive modules
joined
> by a series of cargo containers and tend to be very long and changing
> their facing is difficult.
> 
[Bri] Then there would be a similar limitation on dedicated weapons
placement. But this does not seem to be the case. Part of it depends
on how you view the weapons module and multi-arc weapons. Multi-
Arc weapons may pop out from the hull on stems to allow the turret
to rotate fully; they may be bulges/blisters turrets that allow greater
arcs of fire, or they may be weapons arrays over the surface of the
ship. Any of these options may be modular as well. With the first
two options, the turret is part of the cost of the weapon system. 
Thus the turrets are fixed on the module base which is bolted on 
the ship hardpoint. For option 3, each arc represents a module that
is attached. FT abstracts this into the appropriate class of weapon.

>     The maximum size of a module connecting to a core module's
mounting
> point is fixed during construction.  It is assumed that all modules of
> the same mass (except core modules) are the same shape.
> 
[Bri] I would disagree here. Not all airplane pylon mounts are of the
same size/shape/mass. But logistics would be easier if modules
were of the same size/shape/mass. I would think that most modules
would be mounted in the sides of ships with turrets sticking out to
provide arcs, or on pods (ESU designs are good candidates for 
having wing pods. See Novgorod, Volga, Voroshilev, Petrograd, 
Rostov, etc.)

>     The core module's FTL drive must be large enough for maximum total
> mass, or past a point, it becomes non-FTL capable.  The crew factor is
> determined by the vessel's total combined mass.  The core module's
> complement of rew factors must be allocated on the core module's
damage
> track.  Crewfactors due to the mass of modules may be assigned to any
> module with at least 1 point of hull integrity.  Modules with a mass
of
> 20, or more, must have at least 1 crewfactor (unless it has no hull
> integrity).
> 
[Bri] Agreed. The basic design needs to have 10% total mass in hull
and have FTL and MD set for the ship with maximum mass of modules
accounted for. Screens if part of the core should also take into 
account the maximum mass of the modules when figuring their
mass. It might be a good idea to make each module include 1 hull
box for every 10 mass (or fraction thereof) of the module (This would
be in addition to the minimum 10% required by the overall ship
design); so a mass 10 module would have space for 9 mass of 
systems and 1 mass of hull (access tunnels, etc.).  I would keep
the crew factors to the core of the ship.

[snip]

>     Modules are designed and built using the same rules for starships,
> except systems are limited to only three arcs (except top and bottom,
> which can have any), they may not mount FTL, and hull integrity is can
> be any amount (even zero).  
> 
[Bri] See above.

> A core module with both top and bottom
> mountings for modules may not have more then three arcs for any of its
> systems (unless the core module is more than 10x the mass of the
> bolt-on), because the bolt-on module will be in the way.
> 
[Bri] Disagree, unless you want to do the same thing for core 
systems. I.e. the hull of the ship blocks additional arcs.

>     For the purposes of allocating damage, the modules are ordered by
> mass and a d100 is used to allocate damage (simple example: BC
> consisting of a 40 mu core module and six 10 mu modules would have the
> table 0-39 core, 40-49 m1, 50-59 m2, 60-69 m3, 70-79 m4, 80-89 m5, and
> 90-99 m6).  [snip]
> 
[Bri] I disagree here. I think that it would be better to keep things
simple. Modular systems will only be an advantage in a campaign,
or between games, so that is where any penalty should occur. 
Perhaps, they should be more expensive, but take less time to
install? If you use multiple module sizes/shapes/masses, then
it may be more likely that you are out of a particular module
type when you need repairs/refits.
If you need to have a penalty in the game, perhaps when a system
that is part of a module fails a threshold check, make another one
for the module itself. If the module fails, then no system in that
module may be used until the module, itself, is repaired. Modules
may NOT be the target of needle attacks (only the systems they
contain). A module must make a threshold check if a system it
contains is destroyed by a needle attack. Draw a line around 
systems that are part of a particular module.

[snip]

> Sincerely;
> Richard Bell
> aka "Mary" (her name appeared on the cable bill)
> aka Sa'Vasku poseur
----------End original message----------

My comments marked by [Bri]

I would suggest prohibiting FTL, MD, Screens, and Cloak in modules.
I would also suggest if a weapon uses ammo (SML) that the 
magazine should also be in the module.

---
Brian Bell
http://www.ftsr.org
---