3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I don't see a problem with allowing a sil 4 ship to hall more enc than a yt as there are offical ships that do (e.g. ghtroc I always spell that wrong, and there are other sil 4 ships that carry more) as long as the rules also allow you to make close facsimiles of the official ships and they do. It's a generalist vs. Specialist argument. Yt series freighters are highly modifiable generalist ships in the lore allowing crafted ships to exceed them in some areas without being too much better at everything is a goal (and yt's or even sil 4's are only a very small part of the design space I need to replicate)

I think I see what you mean about Transport Hull.

My point isnt that a ship can have more than a YT, many do. What im saying is as wriiten its too easy for any ship to surpass the YT series as an example or any Freighter type for that matter. Encumbrance is very important in a Edge Smuggler campaign and shouldnt be overlooked as a important statistic and right now as written is broken is smaller ships for the Nubian Collective.

For example I can build a freighter frame with any non freighter hull lets say racing hull and easily trump the Ghtroc (freighter/transport) the best ship in its class officially has 200 for cargo capacity. Now lets say I put 5 Hp into my Freighter/Race Ship. Thats 400 encumbrance. Which is just not balanced for the ship size and function. What im now suggesting is Expanding the Cargo Bay Table, Cargo for other Hulls to instead be Cargo by other Frame Types and also putting a hard cap on how many Cargo Bays a Freighter Frame can take by Silhouette as well.

The ghtroc is not the king of the hill for sil 4 cargo,

This ship

http://swrpg.viluppo.net/transportation/starships/3352/

Has 400 enc.

And there are official sil 5 ships that with the freighter frame and freighter hull require 9 cargo bays to replicate. Even if there was a sil + 4 or 2*sil restriction on cargo bays it wouldn't solve the "problem" that you claim needs fixing.

But once you get past a couple hundred enc for a sil 4 ship, does it really buy a character/party that much to add more? What's the cost benefit analysis of a sil 4 ship with 760 enc? Is it really overpowering in people's games compared to having a ship with 420 enc and 3 extra weapon systems for instance? Or compared to a small hanger bay to carry speeders for when they are on planet/or carrying 1 sil 3 starfighter (each dedicated hanger bay can carry 1 ship 1 silhouette smaller)?

Yes it would solve the problem. Your examples seem to downplay what im saying. Ok ill try to show the problem im seeing.

A list of the a lowest and a highest for comparison by Silhouette with ship types 2-5

Sil 2 Miy'til Starfighter 5/Escape pod 10

Sil 3 Mandalorien Protectorate Starfighter 2/ wander class jump freighter 50.

Sil 4 Far Reach Reconnaissance 2/ Sentinal Landing Craft 500 (probably a freighter hull is more appropriate for this transport)

Sil 5 Starwind Pleasure Yacht 85/ Interceptor IV 10,000

Though some of these might be actual Freighter Hulls. The Freighter Hull I feel is so much enc it should be for Sil 5 or more only and maybe should maybe be called Bulk Freighter Hold. Just a thought.

Again Expanding the Cargo Bay Table. Cargo for other Hulls to include Cargo by other Frame Types instead of all non freighters in one grouping (ie, Shuttles and Transports seem to have on the average more enc than freighters on the average). Doing this can go a long way to getting stats on encumbrance closer to Official stats. But more importantly to solve this put a hard cap on how many Bays a Freighter Frame can take by Silhouette, otherwise theres nothing stopping me from having 15 cargo bays on a Sil 4 Freighter with lets say a race hull template. Thats 1200 enc in a non freighter hull. One Sil 4 with a Freighter Hull can have 3825 which no sil 4 should have room for when compared to 500 official stat.

A couple hundred for Sil 4 is a upper limit by official stats, its not marginal. Sil 4 should be more exact its the game ship of choice across almost all campaign types. It doesnt need a formula across the board so there is no need to change the bigger ships if they align well if that the issue. Sil 4 is what needs adjustment.

1 hour ago, Buddha Fett said:

Yes it would solve the problem. Your examples seem to downplay what im saying. Ok ill try to show the problem im seeing.

A list of the a lowest and a highest for comparison by Silhouette with ship types 2-5

Sil 2 Miy'til Starfighter 5/Escape pod 10

Sil 3 Mandalorien Protectorate Starfighter 2/ wander class jump freighter 50.

Sil 4 Far Reach Reconnaissance 2/ Sentinal Landing Craft 500 (probably a freighter hull is more appropriate for this transport)

Sil 5 Starwind Pleasure Yacht 85/ Interceptor IV 10,000

Though some of these might be actual Freighter Hulls. The Freighter Hull I feel is so much enc it should be for Sil 5 or more only and maybe should maybe be called Bulk Freighter Hold. Just a thought.

Again Expanding the Cargo Bay Table. Cargo for other Hulls to include Cargo by other Frame Types instead of all non freighters in one grouping (ie, Shuttles and Transports seem to have on the average more enc than freighters on the average). Doing this can go a long way to getting stats on encumbrance closer to Official stats. But more importantly to solve this put a hard cap on how many Bays a Freighter Frame can take by Silhouette, otherwise theres nothing stopping me from having 15 cargo bays on a Sil 4 Freighter with lets say a race hull template. Thats 1200 enc in a non freighter hull. One Sil 4 with a Freighter Hull can have 3825 which no sil 4 should have room for when compared to 500 official stat.

A couple hundred for Sil 4 is a upper limit by official stats, its not marginal. Sil 4 should be more exact its the game ship of choice across almost all campaign types. It doesnt need a formula across the board so there is no need to change the bigger ships if they align well if that the issue. Sil 4 is what needs adjustment.

Renaming the freighter hull to be a bulk freighter hull and reastricting it to sil 5 or higher is a good idea, I think I'll do that.

But a sil 4 ship with 15 cargo bays but no sublight engines, hyperdrive or life support is pointless (though I suppose you could add 2 hp and an integrated system to provide those if you used the single ion coil as the sublight drive, but the ship would also have no weapons, etc.)

The biggest issue for a ruleset is not balance or generality but complexity, what comes next is not meant as an insult to your intelligence but there is a famous "K.I.S.S." i.e. Keep It Simple Stupid principle, if this is going to be adopted by the masses it has to be as simple as possible and still be sufficiently general and reasonably balanced.

Tabulating a different number of dedicated bays per frame type is far too complex/clunky to be useful/widely adopted (the rules have to be as close to what a reasonably intelligent person can keep in their head without constantly looking stuff up). Also a different number of bays per frame wouldn't solve the issue because of the larger scope and elegant design frame crafting upgrades would let you work around it.

What could work is a number of bays/berths that is linear in silhouette. The action v transport and interceptor iv have 10K enc, which means a freighter frame, bulk freighter hull, 9 dedicated cargo bays and 3 cargo pods (hull crafting upgrade). 9 dedicated bays works out to either sil +4 (which would let a sil 3 have 7 bays) or sil*2 which means a sil 3 would have 6 bays. Either way a sil 4 could have 8 bays and 3 cargo pods, which for anything but a bulk freighter hull works out to about 1 more bay, so the upper enc limit on a sil 4 ship would be about 20+80*9=740, with the limitations in place. The exceeds the max 500 enc of any official sil 4 ship by about 240 so the maximum acceptable complexity of a restriction DOES NOT SOLVE THE "PROBLEM" you claim needs fixing although it does mitigate it somewhat. And before implementing that I'd need to check that it doesn't screw with destroyers and space stations, which need a LOT of cargo bays, hanger bays, and passenger berths.

And I am not convinced that this "problem" actually needs fixing, because past about 200 to 300 enc players just aren't going to be running up against the enc cap in practice, when you're hauling cargo to sell that should be resolved narratively and with a dice roll or 2 (negotiation checks) not by numerical bean counting.

You're earlier comment about there not being enough to distinguish the freighter and shuttle frames has stuck in my head though because it has merit. I'm thinking about merging them to reduce complexity and "transport" is a sufficiently general frame name to cover both. NOTE that I do NOT see having a frame named transport and hull named transport as a significant issue. And I do not see a problem with removing official options that are unnecessary.

Regarding your list... both the hwk-290 and kst-100 are sil 3 and have more than 50 enc so your accuracy about the other numbers is also in question in my mind.

16 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

And I am not convinced that this "problem" actually needs fixing, because past about 200 to 300 enc players just aren't going to be running up against the enc cap in practice, when you're hauling cargo to sell that should be resolved narratively and with a dice roll or 2 (negotiation checks) not by numerical bean counting.

I kindly your earlier comments. Hmm maybe from your perspective but from mine good 200-300 enc Ship is a good platform near the upper range in cost for successful smugglers, to dump thier credits in and if they all started new characters it is near the climax of thier story arc. These tend to be Sil 4. No bean counting! Just kyber crystals x encumbrance.

1 hour ago, Buddha Fett said:

Seriously what comes next is not meant as an insult to your intelligence but is not productive to our end goals here try to remember this is suppose to be a 'Collective'.

That was a reference to the K.I.S.S.. acronym ending in Stupid. The K.I.S.S. principle sees a lot of professional design use in the real world. You might not be familiar with it, depending on your career which I know nothing about, hence the disclaimer that it is not meant as an insult, I did not invent the acronym, but the first three words of it were highly appropriate.

And if you noticed I have accepted some of your ideas for inclusion, so yes it is a collective effort.

14 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Renaming the freighter hull to be a bulk freighter hull and reastricting it to sil 5 or higher is a good idea, I think I'll do that.

But a sil 4 ship with 15 cargo bays but no sublight engines, hyperdrive or life support is pointless (though I suppose you could add 2 hp and an integrated system to provide those if you used the single ion coil as the sublight drive, but the ship would also have no weapons, etc.)

Tabulating a different number of dedicated bays per frame type is far too complex/clunky to be useful/widely adopted (the rules have to be as close to what a reasonably intelligent person can keep in their head without constantly looking stuff up). Also a different number of bays per frame wouldn't solve the issue because of the larger scope and elegant design frame crafting upgrades would let you work around it.

Im glad you like Bulk Freighter, I think it jives with Transport. Its a good way to represent all the Ship types and no need to make them frames.

Im not suggesting tabulating all the frames for encumbrance. Im saying expand

58 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

That was a reference to the K.I.S.S.. acronym ending in Stupid. The K.I.S.S. principle sees a lot of professional design use in the real world. You might not be familiar with it, depending on your career which I know nothing about, hence the disclaimer that it is not meant as an insult, I did not invent the acronym, but the first three words of it were highly appropriate.

your non frames Bulk Freighter Holds Encumbrance to include, other Ship frame types. This doesnt mean you necessarily have to do all of them! From looking in the Index, I admit I got sloppy with Sil 3 Why point that out? I said Sil 4 needs to be addressed.

Also not to confuse I said Bulk Freighter Holds should be limited by Sil. So aSil 4 cant take 15. The whole point of the litle table I made is so you can see a min/max of enc. ie Sentinal LC is 500 and so 7 Cargo Bays, might be a good limit though I actually think this is a Bulk type.

17 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

You're earlier comment about there not being enough to distinguish the freighter and shuttle frames has stuck in my head though because it has merit. I'm thinking about merging them to reduce complexity and "transport" is a sufficiently general frame name to cover both. NOTE that I do NOT see having a frame named transport and hull named transport as a significant issue. And I do not see a problem with removing official options that are unnecessary.

Regarding your list... both the hwk-290 and kst-100 are sil 3 and have more than 50 enc so your accuracy about the other numbers is also in question in my mind.

By doing them as frames and hulls its possible to include most of the key official types. Regarding missing those 2 Sil 3. The rest should be right though. oonly eyeballed it give me a break. Should I point out you missed the Sentinal, to late.

Transport. I only hesitate because of the above comment about wanting to find a way to include as many officials as is feasible.

But thats good. Now what do you think about redoing table encumbrance so that the other non-bulk freighter hold, are now grouped into Shuttle, Transport, Cargo Freighter, YY-Freighter what do you think?

3 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

Im glad you like Bulk Freighter, I think it jives with Transport. Its a good way to represent all the Ship types and no need to make them frames.

Im not suggesting tabulating all the frames for encumbrance. Im saying expand

your non frames Bulk Freighter Holds Encumbrance to include, other Ship frame types. This doesnt mean you necessarily have to do all of them! From looking in the Index, I admit I got sloppy with Sil 3 Why point that out? I said Sil 4 needs to be addressed.

Also not to confuse I said Bulk Freighter Holds should be limited by Sil. So aSil 4 cant take 15. The whole point of the litle table I made is so you can see a min/max of enc. ie Sentinal LC is 500 and so 7 Cargo Bays, might be a good limit though I actually think this is a Bulk type.

N exc

It's a singular exception that was absolutely necessary to capture the range of encumbrance.and that table is barely wide enough to hold 3 columns. Also the exception is on hull types, not frames, but if you were to put a restriction on one or more frame or hull types, which one(s) would it/they be. It can"t be the freighter/transport frame type because that would cause the action v and interceptor iv to dramatically miss their 10K enc. And I'm pretty sure that putting a restriction on the transport hull type would cause comercial space stations to miss their mark too.

2 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

But thats good. Now what do you think about redoing table encumbrance so that the other non-bulk freighter hold, are now grouped into Shuttle, Transport, Cargo Freighter, YY-Freighter what do you think?

I think we've got pretty close to the minimal set of frames and hulls needed to replicate 95% of ships, hulls for the most part shouldn't be restricted by silhouette although ship of the line and bulk freighter make sense that they can't be smaller than sil 5.

A "shuttle frame" is conceivable (concept is a focus on moving sentients rather than cargo or vehicles, and it's small) but what would be its distinguishing features in terms of mechanics? And I think a "yacht" hull might be more appropriate name than shuttle as it gets rid of the size restriction and implies a luxurious fast people mover.

The user selectable mix of passengers cargo and carried craft all fit under a transport hull (that combo is needed for comercial space stations and star cruise liners), so anything else would need to distinguish itself from that somehow.

YY-freighter??? The rules should definately NOT reference any in universe corporation (CEC designations) so that's a non starter, but maybe there'sa concept associated with that designationthat I'm missing.

Cargo freighter? that's just do you spend you hp on cargo bays (how many?) or something else... cargo freighter is totally unnecessary and adds redundancy. The idea behind the K.I.S.S. principle is to cut out any unnecessary complexity/redundancy, and I don't see what unique benefit a cargo freighter hull would provide. But if you could clarify that it'd be appreciated.

If you're going to propose a "concept" a hint at the type of mechanics that would be associated with it would also be really appreciated?

Im suggesting these as non-sil 5. ie. Cargo bay enc for other Hulls. The table I think your saying is barely wide enough to hold 3 columns.

YT-type deserves its own in the Star Wars universe as it is by far the most common and successfull Freighter type. The equivalent modern fast freighter. It differs from a modern cargo freighter. Official draws alot from WEG source material already.

Dedicated Cargo Bays

So we have Bulk Freighter (Sil 5+), Shuttle, Cargo Freighter, YT-Type Freighter.

You could just go for just Freighter but if you look at the index at both YT-Type Freighters and Transports there is a range that falls here. This give you a range of Cargo holds ie. Very Large (Bulk Freighter), Large (Cargo Freighter), Medium (TY-Type), Small (Shuttles). And then modified by Silhouette by however you got your numbers.

So what defines this Cargo freighter is your standard freighter that focus is on carrying a large shipment of goods but its not big enough for a Bulk Cargo Hold. Ghtroc may be the cut off here.

Then theres the YT-series, in canon this ship is so widespread as to deserve it own encumbrance by Sil on that table because its more than just CEC ship, many other popular makers compete with it. Actually YT-Type is a better descriptor for it. Its highly configurable to user taste but specializes more in a mix of speed, comfort and cargo capacity. Ideal for actual smugglers moving more valuable specialized cargo.

I dunno about adding shuttle i like the idea of just calling them all transport frames

I can see why you might add shuttle back but frankly looking again at the index. Shuttles carry alot of cargo and are in the niche of even faster than YT-with generally a smaller cargo capacity. But if you need to pull them out because of passenger berth can shuttle be a hull template?

What about Survey Vessel because this is also a popular campaign type. Maybe can merge with some ideas with Scout Template, which I think needs a little boost.

Yacht, well other than some charm type mechanics which are represented well in Talents. I would need mechanics more than this to justify bringing it in. That said id I really favor adding this as a Hull Template, for any Lando-ish stylish smugglers out there.

If you want to tell me how you arrived at your cargo encumbrance numbers. Im willing to do the table numbers for you but you have to do your pdf magic. The index really makes this easier than it sounds as they are already grouped for us.

2 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

Im suggesting these as non-sil 5. ie. Cargo bay enc for other Hulls. The table I think your saying is barely wide enough to hold 3 columns.

YT-type deserves its own in the Star Wars universe as it is by far the most common and successfull Freighter type. The equivalent modern fast freighter. It differs from a modern cargo freighter. Official draws alot from WEG source material already.

Dedicated Cargo Bays

So we have Bulk Freighter (Sil 5+), Shuttle, Cargo Freighter, YT-Type Freighter.

You could just go for just Freighter but if you look at the index at both YT-Type Freighters and Transports there is a range that falls here. This give you a range of Cargo holds ie. Very Large (Bulk Freighter), Large (Cargo Freighter), Medium (TY-Type), Small (Shuttles). And then modified by Silhouette by however you got your numbers.

So what defines this Cargo freighter is your standard freighter that focus is on carrying a large shipment of goods but its not big enough for a Bulk Cargo Hold. Ghtroc may be the cut off here.

Then theres the YT-series, in canon this ship is so widespread as to deserve it own encumbrance by Sil on that table because its more than just CEC ship, many other popular makers compete with it. Actually YT-Type is a better descriptor for it. Its highly configurable to user taste but specializes more in a mix of speed, comfort and cargo capacity. Ideal for actual smugglers moving more valuable specialized cargo.

I dunno about adding shuttle i like the idea of just calling them all transport frames

I can see why you might add shuttle back but frankly looking again at the index. Shuttles carry alot of cargo and are in the niche of even faster than YT-with generally a smaller cargo capacity. But if you need to pull them out because of passenger berth can shuttle be a hull template?

What about Survey Vessel because this is also a popular campaign type. Maybe can merge with some ideas with Scout Template, which I think needs a little boost.

Yacht, well other than some charm type mechanics which are represented well in Talents. I would need mechanics more than this to justify bringing it in. That said id I really favor adding this as a Hull Template, for any Lando-ish stylish smugglers out there.

If you want to tell me how you arrived at your cargo encumbrance numbers. Im willing to do the table numbers for you but you have to do your pdf magic. The index really makes this easier than it sounds as they are already grouped for us.

Can you tell me what benefit (what *new* game mechanical thing can you achieve with) your proposal provides relative to a transport frame (a merging of the current shuttle frame and freighter frame), the current transport hull, a (possible) 2*sil limit on dedicated bays and berths (don't forget that with 54 passengers the sentinel also has at least 2 dedicated crew berths, which means it used 8 totaldedicated bays+berths, don't get hung up on the name berth it just adds passengers and does not necessarily imply the presence or absence of sleeping quarters), the optional 3 cargo pod hull crafting upgrades (for fine tuning), and the bulk freighter hull being restricted to sil 5+?

The bulk freighter hull enc is 4^sil rounded to nice numbers (ship length is exponential in size with a base of about 2.2, so cargo should also be exponential in silhouette, with differing numbers of bays used to explain the large variability within a silhouette and up to 3 cargo pods to fine tune the enc). The other hulls get 3^sil (rounded to nice numbers) per cargo bay. It is conceivable to add a 2^sil rounded to nice numbers as a third smaller option. Nice numbers means no more than 4 nonzero leading digits with the last leading digit being a multiple of 5 as a starting point, with adjustments from there as appropriate.

VSL is the square of silhouette rounded to nice numbers. These are tabulated so that the "only" math users of the house rules have to do is addition, and rounded to nice numbers to make the addition easier (K.I.S.S. principle in practice). 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 75, 80, 100 are some examples of nice numbers.

Ill try to be more concise to avoid and confusion or misunderstanding.

I like the category 'Bulk Cargo Hold' instead of Bulk Freighter column and Sil 5 and up, using that.

Im trying to address more accurate enc especially for the Sil 4 player ships first. Figuring out the # of Bays and how they may interact with other bays like berths will be easier after doing this first.

The benefit is just to streamline things functionally all these ships that just carry cargo. Mechanically its to bring the official ships even closer to their official encumbrance value while including as many Ship types as is still reasonably feasible.

Transports (including Small Transport and Light Assault)

Sil 3 Selonian Clone Ship 2-6 the KSE Rho-1

Sil 4,ranges from 80-400 the TL-18B

Sil 5 ranges from 120-10,000 Action VI Bulk Transport

Sil 6 ranges from 10,000-10,000. Star Galleon armed

Shuttle

Sil 4 ranges from 80-500 the Sentinal class (essentially troop transport)

Sil 5 the Curich class is 500 (essentially troop transport)

maybe shuttle should be its own Hull.

Freighter (including Light Freighter)

Sil 3 ranges 50-75 Hwk 290

Sil 4 ranges from 75-200 Ghtroc

Sil 5 Starwind Yacht 85-Wayfarer 850

Bulk Freighter (including Bulk Cruiser, just for reference)

Sil 5 200-8500 Action IV Bulk Freighter

Sil 7 Rendili Stardrive Neutron 5000

About YT-Type though I think its thematic I agree its not necessary.

Im still till looking at non Sil 5 encumbrance for ship types according to index but here are ranges for smaller vessels sil 3-4 for reference. I double checked these this time.

Eyeballing this for now as a fix. One idea is to make Bulk Freighter its own thing. Divorce non sil 5 from this Hull Template and just make it a Cargo Hold attachment (replacing the Official Expanded Cargo Holds) for all ships. Specify ships with the OFFICIAL Hull Type use these categories. The # of bays become mods now on the smaller ships

And if you want more bays than max mods for official ships, you have to pay for another Expanded Cargo Hold and the value of the encumbrance hold is halved. You can only buy 2 additional Expanded Cargo Holds this way and that the maximum limit for Sil 4.

Otherwise keep things as is but Cargo Bay cost for smaller ships will need to be addressed with the values being more incremental and precise. But then again I thought the encumbrance numbners were already generous for lower than Sil 4 point cost.

Bulk Cargo Hold/Transport & Shuttle/Freighter (They are all basically YT-types)/Others

ie Shuttle /Transport (merged)

Sil Cargo Enc. Value (note I think the values should replace encumbrance from frame rather than add to Frame enc. its the size of the hold installed). Note Sil 5+ uses 'Bulk Hold' Category.

Sil 1-2 not covered, these are best left for Vehicles

Sil 3 is 20 (cargo bay range of 1-2)

Sil 4 is 50 (cargo bay range from 2-10) The large range tells me Shuttle/Transport can be merged and maybe should be its own Frame. Im suggesting allowing Sil 4 to take Bulk Cargo Holds as if a Sil 5 for Shuttle and Transport only, but at a higher cost then Sil 5. Perhaps Bulk Sil 5 should start at 500

Freighter

Sil 3 is 25 (cargo bay range of 1-3)

Sil 4, is 40 (cargo bay range of 2-5)

These numbers align nicely with official stats at a glance but still need revision. Eyeballed the Cargo Bay ranges

3 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

Ill try to be more concise to avoid and confusion or misunderstanding.

I like the category 'Bulk Cargo Hold' instead of Bulk Freighter column and Sil 5 and up, using that.

Im trying to address more accurate enc especially for the Sil 4 player ships first. Figuring out the # of Bays and how they may interact with other bays like berths will be easier after doing this first.

The benefit is just to streamline things functionally all these ships that just carry cargo. Mechanically its to bring the official ships even closer to their official encumbrance value while including as many Ship types as is still reasonably feasible.

Transports (including Small Transport and Light Assault)

Sil 3 Selonian Clone Ship 2-6 the KSE Rho-1

Sil 4,ranges from 80-400 the TL-18B

Sil 5 ranges from 120-10,000 Action VI Bulk Transport

Sil 6 ranges from 10,000-10,000. Star Galleon armed

Shuttle

Sil 4 ranges from 80-500 the Sentinal class (essentially troop transport)

Sil 5 the Curich class is 500 (essentially troop transport)

maybe shuttle should be its own Hull.

Freighter (including Light Freighter)

Sil 3 ranges 50-75 Hwk 290

Sil 4 ranges from 75-200 Ghtroc

Sil 5 Starwind Yacht 85-Wayfarer 850

Bulk Freighter (including Bulk Cruiser, just for reference)

Sil 5 200-8500 Action IV Bulk Freighter

Sil 7 Rendili Stardrive Neutron 5000

About YT-Type though I think its thematic I agree its not necessary.

Im still till looking at non Sil 5 encumbrance for ship types according to index but here are ranges for smaller vessels sil 3-4 for reference. I double checked these this time.

Eyeballing this for now as a fix. One idea is to make Bulk Freighter its own thing. Divorce non sil 5 from this Hull Template and just make it a Cargo Hold attachment (replacing the Official Expanded Cargo Holds) for all ships. Specify ships with the OFFICIAL Hull Type use these categories. The # of bays become mods now on the smaller ships

And if you want more bays than max mods for official ships, you have to pay for another Expanded Cargo Hold and the value of the encumbrance hold is halved. You can only buy 2 additional Expanded Cargo Holds this way and that the maximum limit for Sil 4.

Otherwise keep things as is but Cargo Bay cost for smaller ships will need to be addressed with the values being more incremental and precise. But then again I thought the encumbrance numbners were already generous for lower than Sil 4 point cost.

Bulk Cargo Hold/Transport & Shuttle/Freighter (They are all basically YT-types)/Others

ie Shuttle /Transport (merged)

Sil Cargo Enc. Value (note I think the values should replace encumbrance from frame rather than add to Frame enc. its the size of the hold installed). Note Sil 5+ uses 'Bulk Hold' Category.

Sil 1-2 not covered, these are best left for Vehicles

Sil 3 is 20 (cargo bay range of 1-2)

Sil 4 is 50 (cargo bay range from 2-10) The large range tells me Shuttle/Transport can be merged and maybe should be its own Frame. Im suggesting allowing Sil 4 to take Bulk Cargo Holds as if a Sil 5 for Shuttle and Transport only, but at a higher cost then Sil 5. Perhaps Bulk Sil 5 should start at 500

Freighter

Sil 3 is 25 (cargo bay range of 1-3)

Sil 4, is 40 (cargo bay range of 2-5)

These numbers align nicely with official stats at a glance but still need revision. Eyeballed the Cargo Bay ranges

This is intended to be constructive criticism but I think the tone is coming off different than I intended. There's a guy at my work, a smart guy with good depth and breadth of knowledge, when anyone gives a presentation this guy is the guy who asks the tough questions/he immediately jumps to the core issues challenges. Some people dislike him because of it, but I always want his feedback and I actually request it before presenting so I can make my work better before it goes out for general review. So that's the Spirit in which I'm hoping you take what comes next... a listing of challenges that need to be addressed before your proposal can be a serious contender for inclusion in the house rules. Not although it may sound a little harsh (I think I phrased it poorly so apologies in advance) I have not eliminated your proposal from consideration for inclusion.

So here are the challenges...

Having 3 choices instead 1 (only 3 because bulk freighter is sil 5+) for a sil 4 transport doesn't count as streamlining in my book;

you haven't given a mechanical reason why anyone would want to take anything other than a shuttle for a sil 4 ship because for the only stats listed it's just better than the other two and it's pretty close to the current transport hull in terms of capability just more restricted/less general.

your specification of the transport hull seems to make it inappropriate for carriers, cruise liners, and space stations which adds additional complexity elsewhere (and without proposing a solution for those issues)

the current house rules get the enc of official ships are pretty darn close as it is so you're facing an uphill battle to justify adding a lot of complexity for not much benefit,

and you haven't proposed/demonstrated game mechanics that actually get the enc any closer, at best you've stated some design goals without proposing a design.

Now I don't believe that it's impossible to overcome these challenges I just personally don't have any ideas about how to do that, so consider it a lack of vision on my part. I'm willing to be convinced but to convince me you're going to have to spell out the details of how it could work (maybe there's a super simple solution that I'm just completely missing)

@EliasWindrider

Ton-Falk Carrier: Requires at minimum 1 Triumph and 4 Advantage on the Carrier frame to gain Integrated Improvement (Double Crew), Larger Scope, and Too Big to Hurt. Unlikely to score that Triumph without multiple tries and at least rolling 4 Proficiency dice.

Ion Turbine Engine: 5 Advantage gets Enhanced Output and Enhanced Power to Deflectors. Four Mods on the engine net +14 System Strain and +2 to Defense.

Transport Hull: 4 Advantage gets Extra Hardpoint and Layered Plating. Three Mods on hull net +2 Armor and Double Passenger Capacity.

Needs: 3 HP for Engines, 3 HP for Hangar Bays, 8 HP for Cargo Bays (assuming only 200 base Enc), 1 HP for Hyperdrive (5 Mods needed), 2 HP for Reinforced Frame, 1 HP for Sensors (2 Mods needed), 19 HP for Weapons (including Turrets for Tractor Beams), about 3 HP for Life Support (5 Mods total for all 3 units), 3 Open Hardpoints.

Only variable is Passengers, but there would be 19 unused Hardpoints, 18 of which could be used to buy 9 Passenger Berths.

Sil 7, Spd 2, Handling -2 (actual ship: -3), Def 2/2/2/1 (actual ship: 2/2/2/2), Armor 4, HTt 82 (80 actual), SSt 64 (60 actual)

Crew: 4,800 (4,000 actual); Passengers: Base x2 (+450 w/ 9 Passenger Berths) (800 actual); Encumbrance: Base + 8,800 (9,000 actual)

Starfighters and other vehicles: 300 Sil capacity (only needs 272-ish)

Would have 4 Unused Hardpoints if using 18 for passengers.

NOTE: Now that Carrier can take Larger Scope twice, the Hangar Bay needs a Sil 8 entry.

Cheers!

I still think it's weird that it needs so many HP devoted to Cargo and Passengers, but only 3 for Hangars. The ship description indicates that the Ton-Falk (Sil 7) is the smallest ship that can carry 72 tie fighters.

I have no constructive input on how to change that.

8 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

Ton-Falk Carrier: Requires at minimum 1 Triumph and 4 Advantage on the Carrier frame to gain Integrated Improvement (Double Crew), Larger Scope, and Too Big to Hurt. Unlikely to score that Triumph without multiple tries and at least rolling 4 Proficiency dice.

Ion Turbine Engine: 5 Advantage gets Enhanced Output and Enhanced Power to Deflectors. Four Mods on the engine net +14 System Strain and +2 to Defense.

Transport Hull: 4 Advantage gets Extra Hardpoint and Layered Plating. Three Mods on hull net +2 Armor and Double Passenger Capacity.

Needs: 3 HP for Engines, 3 HP for Hangar Bays, 8 HP for Cargo Bays (assuming only 200 base Enc), 1 HP for Hyperdrive (5 Mods needed), 2 HP for Reinforced Frame, 1 HP for Sensors (2 Mods needed), 19 HP for Weapons (including Turrets for Tractor Beams), about 3 HP for Life Support (5 Mods total for all 3 units), 3 Open Hardpoints.

Only variable is Passengers, but there would be 19 unused Hardpoints, 18 of which could be used to buy 9 Passenger Berths.

Sil 7, Spd 2, Handling -2 (actual ship: -3), Def 2/2/2/1 (actual ship: 2/2/2/2), Armor 4, HTt 82 (80 actual), SSt 64 (60 actual)

Crew: 4,800 (4,000 actual); Passengers: Base x2 (+450 w/ 9 Passenger Berths) (800 actual); Encumbrance: Base + 8,800 (9,000 actual)

Starfighters and other vehicles: 300 Sil capacity (only needs 272-ish)

Would have 4 Unused Hardpoints if using 18 for passengers.

NOTE: Now that Carrier can take Larger Scope twice, the Hangar Bay needs a Sil 8 entry.

Cheers!

I still think it's weird that it needs so many HP devoted to Cargo and Passengers, but only 3 for Hangars. The ship description indicates that the Ton-Falk (Sil 7) is the smallest ship that can carry 72 tie fighters.

I have no constructive input on how to change that.

Passenger berths and hanger bays need work... I'll see what I can do when I get the chance (my inlaw and my dad are visiting)

Transport ranges are Official. I didnt make them. Its our or your job to take the stats and make them balanced by cost or other means. Its more problematic to allow the shuttle to just be like other transport in the way we were talking about when it clearly has twice the passenger and cargo capacity. Again perhaps I think its needs to be its own thing.

The Shuttle just is better! As for how it effects carriers, cruise liners, and space stations which adds additional complexity elsewhere (and without proposing a solution for those issues)  . You should think about a solution rather than expect just me to, it may take some time. Obviosly I dont have a ready solution to plug it into the whole system with ease. This may mean reworking some other numbers to make it work but we dont know if we dont try. After all not many players are making Spacestations and Carriers within the framework of thier campaign. Sil 4 ships are more important in the grand scheme of things. The fact that i could take a Sil 4 and take it far beyond Official specs shows that it was ignored.

Im just gonna be blunt. My time is valuable today.

One formula to fit all Ship sizes wont work. While balancing combat stats well enough, you dont see encumbrance as a important statistic and at a certain point 1 formula works for larger ships Sil 5 up is what I discovered. I think its just a difference in play style. I run and play in more grittier edge smuggler campaign and yours experiince is perhaps of a more epic scope? I hope you see why this is important and its for the same reason that you dont think it is that I do. a nd thats once you get to a certain encumbrance it becomes far less important. Also I think you see it as alot of reworking but I think in time a solution will present itself. I made a suggestion to just make it easy. ie calling it Bulk Freighter and later Bulk Cargo Hold and limiting to Sil 5. Great you agree but what about the Sil 4 ships. like I said you could just make it a add on attachment call it Expanded Cargo Hold and just say it replaces the official.

Another thought is keep the frame Transports as discussed (share the same stat line but give them a sub class of the Hull types. (Transport, Shuttle, Freighter). Specify under bays how each will interact. (ie cargo, passenger birth, etc). Then just compose the enc to arrive at the figures needed to line up with Official stats. Which im willing to do. Make a table when its finished to save space if needed. In my experience players will keep a Ship Sheet and end of day this doesnt complicate anything as the figures are under he hood. The bottom line is they will just look at the Enc of the ship they wrote down.

To be clear about the challenges regarding Dedicated Cargo Bay Table for Encumbrance. Are we on the same page? When you say 3 types are you now referring to Transport (Transport, Shuttle, Freighter) like I was saying and removing Bulk Freigher as its own thing? Or are you saying Bulk Freighter/Other and telling me you only got room for 1 more? Obviously Transport fits here but doesnt allow for enough spread in the Enc ranges im talking about.

Im going to refrain from any post so you can have your attention on the Ton-Falk for now.

1 hour ago, Buddha Fett said:

Transport ranges are Official. I didnt make them. Its our or your job to take the stats and make them balanced by cost or other means. Its more problematic to allow the shuttle to just be like other transport in the way we were talking about when it clearly has twice the passenger and cargo capacity. Again perhaps I think its needs to be its own thing.

The Shuttle just is better! As for how it effects carriers, cruise liners, and space stations which adds additional complexity elsewhere (and without proposing a solution for those issues)  . You should think about a solution rather than expect just me to, it may take some time. Obviosly I dont have a ready solution to plug it into the whole system with ease. This may mean reworking some other numbers to make it work but we dont know if we dont try. After all not many players are making Spacestations and Carriers within the framework of thier campaign. Sil 4 ships are more important in the grand scheme of things. The fact that i could take a Sil 4 and take it far beyond Official specs shows that it was ignored.

Im just gonna be blunt. My time is valuable today.

One formula to fit all Ship sizes wont work. While balancing combat stats well enough, you dont see encumbrance as a important statistic and at a certain point 1 formula works for larger ships Sil 5 up is what I discovered. I think its just a difference in play style. I run and play in more grittier edge smuggler campaigns perhaps and yours experince is perhaps of a more epic scope? I hope you see why this is important and its for the same reason that you dont think it is that I do. a nd thats once you get to a certain encumbrance it becomes far less important. Also I think you see it as alot of reworking but I think in time a solution will present itself. I made a suggestion to just make it easy. ie calling it Bulk Freighter and later Bulk Cargo Hold and limiting to Sil 5. Great you agree but what about the Sil 4 ships. like I said you could just make it a add on attachment call it Expanded Cargo Hold and just say it replaces the official.

Another thought is keep the frame Transports as discussed (share the same stat line but give them a sub class of the Hull types. (Transport, Shuttle, Freighter). Specify under bays how each will interact. (ie cargo, passenger birth, etc). Then just compose the enc to arrive at the figures needed to line up with Official stats. Which im willing to do. Make a table when its finished to save space if needed. In my experience players will keep a Ship Sheet and end of day this doesnt complicate anything as the figures are under he hood. The bottom line is they will just look at the Enc of the ship they wrote down.

First, I don't believe for a second that your time is any more or less valuable than Elias's time. To spout otherwise screams of arrogance, especially when you flatly tell him to "You should think about a solution rather than expect just me to,...", to something he, nor anyone other than you apparently, seems to BE a problem. If you don't like what's being done, go back to the original book or Houserule the Houserule.

Second, let's take a look at the most extreme possible build for a Sil 4 transport, assuming as many Triumphs and Advantage to max out HP's and Attachments. The Sil 4 Transport starts with Hull of 25, Enc 20 and 17 HP. Assuming you add a HP in both the areas that allow it, it would be 19 (yes, I know I'm doing things out of order, but the math still adds up). So, taking the Single Ion Coil engines at 2 HP, leaves 17 HP gives it no Defense a Speed of 1 and 8 SS. Speed COULD be modded up to 4 and SS up to 20, but not very likely for both, but hey, it's an Intellect 7, skill 6 (with Cybernetic Upgrades) Hotshot/Gamble/Droid-tech/Cybertech with all 5 ranks of Second Chances, Supreme Double or Nothing, all 3 ranks of Eye for Detail and Unmatched Fortune, so the dice are his b***h, so all the mods. Now with Transport Hull (got more niftys) you get Armor 1 and Handling -2 maxed out again gets Armor 3, Defense 1 F/1 R, Handling -1 and needing only 1 Pilot. No HP loss there so still at 17. Now the Hull can give Integrated Systems (twice because it's a Transport) so we'll go with a Hyperdrive and Navcomputer. Now Assembly can net 2 more Integrated Systems, we'll go with a weapon emplacement and 1 extra cargo hold. Getting escape pods, a Life Support System and Basic Sensors for a total of 1 more HP leaves a whopping 16 HP left. That's 16 MORE cargo bays plus the 1 from earlier and the 20 it starts with that's a total of 4355 Encumbrance! It's obviously worse than you thought.

Now final stats look like Sil 4, Hull 25, SS 20, Speed 4, Armor 3, Defense 1 F/1 R, Handling -1, 0 HP, 1 weapon system and Enc 4355. Now, the big thing is, what does that Enc mean? Let's assume the are hauling steamer trunks. Standard steamer trunk is about 3.35 Cu Ft and I'd hazard about enc 5. That's 871 steamer trunks at 3.35 CuFt each netting approximately 2917.85 Cu Ft of space needed. Assuming a 7 ft. ceiling that leaves about 20 ft by 21 ft needed for top to ceiling stacking. Since that's not really possible, I'll double the needed space to 40 ft x 40 ft. Not an extravagant amount of space really for a Sil 4 ship.

Big problem here...it's unique, not very good for smugglers and with a capacity that big, it would be the envy of many a possible pirate. Another is no options to upgrade anything...ever. And lastly, the GM let them build it that way. Just because the rules do not expressly forbid it, common sense should step in at some point (like not allowing a Fighter to have the 45 possible SS , 57 Enc and Passengers of 49 in the core book)

Third, many players may not be making spacestations and the like in their campaigns, but GM's might. FFG thought it important enough to add them in to the rules, so they should be gives as much weight as to the all important Sil 4 transport.

Fourth, speaking of the Sil 4 transport. This ship seems to be of the utmost importance in your games, not necessarily everyone elses'. Our group has four Sil 3's and a Sil 5. It's been established lore for a while now (though I can't recall if it's been re-stated in canon, my time is too valuable to look right now ? ) that the Light transports were not the primary sources of hauling across the galaxy, usually small companies with small amounts of freight, smugglers and the like. They were a dime a dozen and no one looked twice at them...unless they stick out like a bloated pack mule in a room full of shetlands.

My appologies if my tone is sarcastic, but it comes across that you seem h**l bent on telling Elias that what he's doing doesn't fit your game and it's his job to fix it for you, not yours. That bothers me, especially when Elias is doing 98% of all of this by himself with salamar_dree doing the bulk of the big build testing. Heck, the only thing I've contributed was "hey, appreciate the work you're doing".

4 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

Transport ranges are Official. I didnt make them. Its our or your job to take the stats and make them balanced by cost or other means. Its more problematic to allow the shuttle to just be like other transport in the way we were talking about when it clearly has twice the passenger and cargo capacity. Again I think its needs to be its own thing.

The Shuttle just is better! As for how it effects carriers, cruise liners, and space stations which adds additional complexity elsewhere (and without proposing a solution for those issues)  . You should think about a solution rather than expect me to, it may take some time.After all many players are making Spacestations and Carriers. Sil 4 ships are more important in the grand scheme of things. The fact that i could take a Sil 4 and take it far beyond Official specs shows that it was ignored.

Im just gonna be blunt. My time is valuable.

One formula to fit all Ship sizes wont work. While balancing combat stats well enough, you dont see encumbrance as a important statistic and at a certain point 1 formula works for larger ships Sil 5 up is what I discovered. I think its just a difference in play style, that you dont see why this is important. Also I think you see it as alot of reworking but I think in time a solution will present itself. I made a suggestion to just make it easy. ie calling it Bulk Freighter and later Bulk Cargo Hold and limiting to Sil 5. Great you agree but what about the Sil 4 ships. like I said you could just make it a add on attachment call it Expanded Cargo Hold (for non Bulk Cargo Holds) and just say it replaced the official.

I was going to state my time is no less valuable than yours, so if it is a waste of your time to fix the issues that your proposal would introduce then it is also a waste of mine and I'm not going to waste my time...but Jareth already beat me to it.

Second... introducing inferior options "just because" (of some reason that's important to you but I'm not clear on) IS BAD DESIGN in general, the corresponding good design is to either

make sure the superior option covers the cases the inferior options would cover and eliminate the inferior options (what I'd advocate) OR

to do some combination of weakening the superior option/strengthening the inferior options that gives pro's and cons to each, and having already spent a non trivial amount of time on it before you joined the conversation, I had trouble differentiating between the freighter and shuttle frames (you yourself commented on there not being enough to differentiate them, which is largely what convinced me they should be merged)

Also it seems illogical to me that something designed to carry cargo would be worse at carrying cargo than something that had to make trade offs between carrying passengers and cargo. So it's in universe economics or some other non-technical reason that would have to explain the difference so imposing a technical limitation in the ruleset is not a good way to model an non-technical feature of the universe.

And transports (not shuttles) have been demonstrated by official ships to be able to carry AT LEAST 400 enc at affordable prices... so I don't think economics (at least not the cost of making the tech) is the in universe non-technical reason that this isn't more common. Maybe it's fuel costs for the typical cargo loads but the game hand waves fuel costs so putting that in ship building rules seems odd/not the right place to me.

I didnt say what both of you are implying. That my time is more valuable. Read again. I said im going to be blunt because my time is valuable today. That said im out. Peace.

7 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

First, I don't believe for a second that your time is any more or less valuable than Elias's time. To spout otherwise screams of arrogance, especially when you flatly tell him to "You should think about a solution rather than expect just me to,...", to something he, nor anyone other than you apparently, seems to BE a problem. If you don't like what's being done, go back to the original book or Houserule the Houserule.

I didnt say what both of you are implying. That my time is more valuable. Read again. I said im going to be blunt because my time is valuable today. That said im out. Peace.

6 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I was going to state my time is no less valuable than yours, so if it is a waste of your time to fix the issues that your proposal would introduce then it is also a waste of mine and I'm not going to waste my time  ...but Jareth already beat me to it.

Second... introducing inferior options "just because" (of some reason that's important to you but I'm not clear on) IS BAD DESIGN in general, the corresponding good design is to either

Nowhere did I say its a waste of my time and I believe everyone's time is equally valuable.

You said you weren't going to do it because your time was valuable and I should do it. While not explicitly stating it was a waste of your time or that my time was less valuable you did quite clearly and strongly imply both.

7 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

You said you weren't going to do it because your time was valuable and I should do it. While not explicitly stating it was a waste of your time or that my time was less valuable you did quite clearly and strongly imply both.

It would be odd to need to quote myself but in my defense last time I checked and I quote " You should think about a solution rather than expect just me to", your ignoring the real content of my post as usual and taking offense to this one line in a long post. I wont bother you with my "Inferior Bad Design" anymore. No worries. Peace.

9 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

That said im out. Peace.