@EliasWindrider

In light of your PM. If you ever decide this is something the Nubian needs, ill be back to help. Like I said no worries between us. I threw alot of key ideas out there with little feedback from you. My only request was you expand the Encumbrance to include other types not just Bulk size holds and other types. I tried to explain that Encumbrance can easily be as important of a stat as Speed, Armor etc.. Paraphrasing. I said id be willing to do the numbers if you told me how you want it implemented and the line that offended you, correct interpretation is I aint doing it alone. The reason being your lack of direction in how you want me to handle it. If I projected to you its a waste of my time to my defense the volume of my posts speak otherwise. Butmy hanhds are tied without clear understanding and communication of ideas. Its like we are speaking two different dialects up in here. I cant even wrap my head around why you call what im asking "Inferior Options".

14 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

@EliasWindrider

In light of your PM. If you ever decide this is something the Nubian needs, ill be back to help. Like I said no worries between us. I threw alot of key ideas out there with little feedback from you. My only request was you expand the Encumbrance to include other types not just Bulk size holds and other types. I tried to explain that Encumbrance can easily be as important of a stat as Speed, Armor etc.. Paraphrasing. I said id be willing to do the numbers if you told me how you want it implemented and the line that offended you, correct interpretation is I aint doing it alone. The reason being your lack of direction in how you want me to handle it. If I projected to you its a waste of my time to my defense the volume of my posts speak otherwise. Butmy hanhds are tied without clear understanding and communication of ideas. Its like we are speaking two different dialects up in here. I cant even wrap my head around why you call what im asking "Inferior Options".

The freighter and transport as you proposed them (the limited info available anyway) are inferior to the shuttle, them being inferior means they won't get much if any use, so they'd need a really really solid justification to include them instead of just using a slightly generalized shuttle renamed to transport. I don't know what kind of justification would be sufficient but I'm not claiming it's impossible to justify just that I lack sufficient creativity or vision to see what it is until it's spelled out for me (I'm hoping I'd know it if/when I saw it)

I just had an idea:

The Ton-Falk states that it's the first dedicated Imperial carrier. It also states that it's the smallest (Sil 7) to carry 72 Tie fighters.

Perhaps the limit on the Dedicated Bays shouldn't be a quantity of bays, but a number of Hardpoints? Then, the hulls/frames that reduce the HP cost of bays actually have an edge.

I really think the Shuttle need to be its own thing (hull template?) because its strength is its Passenger and Enc. Stat line. When you look at Freighter and Transport cargo for those smaller than Bulk Freighter (Sil 5), we can see they can share the same Enc progression together, where shuttles can double that number and carry lots of passengers. Im suggesting balance for Shuttles by some other means. One thing not to overlook is yes shuttles can carry more and stat wise are close to Freighters and transports thus better but they also have on the average 3-4 less HP, emphasizing that Freighters excel in user customization which makes the Freighter still the superior choice in my mind, once you start upgrading them.

On 7/9/2018 at 10:42 AM, Jareth Valar said:

? 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.

Like i said considering the highest Sil 4 enc in the game is 500 enc. and it meant to be a troop transport. Meaning its design focus is to carry cargo and troops and has some of the finest designers in the galaxy with nearly limitless funding. With all do respect im just gonna say no and its bad design. No offense intended. I just wanted to address that for the Nubian but if its inferior idea or option then ill leave it be. I also thing the Hull base stat line is little to generous. I never meant to offend or say I want this now you do all the work

21 minutes ago, Buddha Fett said:

Like i said considering the highest Sil 4 enc in the game is 500 enc. and it meant to be a troop transport. Meaning its design focus is to carry cargo and troops and has some of the finest designers in the galaxy with nearly limitless funding. With all do respect im just gonna say no and its bad design. No offense intended. I just wanted to address that for the Nubian but if its inferior idea or option then ill leave it be. I also thing the Hull base stat line is little to generous. I never meant to offend or say I want this now you do all the work

As for the design above, yeah, it's a horrible design (just me being a sarcastic a$$). Extreme to the max and would never be allowed in my game (nor even attempted by my players, they'd rather buy stock to blend in better) and no offense taken.

As for the "meaning to offend", I'm good. Misunderstanding that just struck a nerve at the time. As far as I'm concerned, it's all good. Kaka occurs, clean up and move on. lol

11 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

Like i said considering the highest Sil 4 enc in the game is 500 enc. and it meant to be a troop transport. Meaning its design focus is to carry cargo and troops and has some of the finest designers in the galaxy with nearly limitless funding. With all do respect im just gonna say no and its bad design. No offense intended. I just wanted to address that for the Nubian but if its inferior idea or option then ill leave it be. I also thing the Hull base stat line is little to generous. I never meant to offend or say I want this now you do all the work

If we put in a 2*limit for the number of bays, rename the freighter hull to bulk freighter and restrict it to sil 5+, then 6 cargo bays would provide 480 enc + 20 for the freighter/shuttle-> transport frame base you get 50 enc, and you'd need to add 2 passenger berths to provide 30 passengers, with 4*2*2 (base with 2x integrated improvements) -> 46 passengers and you could increase the passengers slightly with frame crafting upgrades. With the 2*sil->8 bays+berths limit the maximum capacity of a sil 4 transport would line up pretty much exactly with the sentinel without having having to resort to multiple frame types. A dedicated cargo vessel could get another 160 enc by sacrificing passenger berths and then 3 cargo pod hull crafting upgrades. That seems pretty reasonable to me and is an extremely minor change from the current pdf

So I might be a little lost here. Haven't looked in a while since I've been very busy irl... but one thing to take into account for most shuttles is the restricted status and another is the cost... most light freighters (ie yt's) are small personal ships that are fairly cheap. So perhaps costs of the ship as well as a possible restricted status on a shuttle frame and hull combo makes the difference for why someone builds a yt type personal freighter vs a much better shuttle option?

8 hours ago, jayc007 said:

So I might be a little lost here. Haven't looked in a while since I've been very busy irl... but one thing to take into account for most shuttles is the restricted status and another is the cost... most light freighters (ie yt's) are small personal ships that are fairly cheap. So perhaps costs of the ship as well as a possible restricted status on a shuttle frame and hull combo makes the difference for why someone builds a yt type personal freighter vs a much better shuttle option?

If the number of bays are priced appropriately (maybe escalating price for each bay you add, the price isn't for the back but how tough it is to design it in), you could get that implicitly, without the need for another frame. I really am trying to make this system as simple as possible, with as low a page count as possible, so 1) it's easy/simple to use so that it will get a lot of use and 2) maybe just maybe (and I know how unlikely this is) ffg might adopt it as errata, in future reprints of FO (it'd need to fit into about the same number of pages as the RAW ship building rules)

23 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

If we put in a 2*limit for the number of bays, rename the freighter hull to bulk freighter and restrict it to sil 5+, That seems pretty reasonable to me and is an extremely minor change from the current pdf

Minor as in easy to implement but important I think. You have addressed stats for balance, speed, armor, and now enc. Im glad you decided to implement a limit to the bays and the Sil 5 Bulk Freighter change. Thank you for hearing me out.

21 minutes ago, Buddha Fett said:

Minor as in easy to implement but important I think. You have addressed stats for balance, speed, armor, and now enc. Im glad you decided to implement a limit to the bays and the Sil 5 Bulk Freighter change. Thank you for hearing me out.

I still need to make sure these changes don't futz with space stations and sil 9 destroyers, but yeah... I really do mean for this to be a "Collective" effort and 9 (arbitrary "largish" number of contributors) heads are better than one. I'll take good ideas (that work well with the rest of the system) from wherever I can find them (e.g. weapon banks weren't my idea, neither was the "ship of the line" hull). Thanks for your input.

Oh, on the note of Sil 4 ships cargo capacity, 500 isn't the largest. The Zeta-Class Heavy Cargo Shuttle in Dawn of Rebellion has 750.

21 minutes ago, Jareth Valar said:

Oh, on the note of Sil 4 ships cargo capacity, 500 isn't the largest. The Zeta-Class Heavy Cargo Shuttle in Dawn of Rebellion has 750.

Thanks... depending on passengers the proposed rule mod would still cover it.

50 troops with full combat gear as Passengers, but the Enc states 750 (without passengers)

Quasar Fire-class Escort Carrier:

Technically, the fluff says that this design started as a Bulk Freighter, but that it was stripped down and rebuilt as a dedicated carrier. As such, I used the Carrier Frame, Ion Turbine Engine, and Transport Hull.

End results: Sil 6, Spd 2, Handling -2, Def 2/2/2/1, Armor 5, Hull Trauma 60 (vs. target 62), System Strain 47 (vs. target 45).

Crew: 300 (vs. target 250), Passengers: ? (vs. target 150)

Again, needs a Triumph to get "Too Tough To Hurt" (BTW: I discovered that it is a result on both the Frame and the Hull charts, so there is actually two chances to score the requisite Triumph).

Needs: Integrated Improvements result on the Frame and the Halve Crew Requirements Mod for the Frame to come close to the crew requirements.

Only needs 3 HP for Life Support (w/ total of 8 successful Mods spread among the 3 units), 6 HP for Weapons (maybe 4: even though the Tractor Beams have a Fire Arc of "All", they are Hull mounted, not Turret mounted), 1 HP for the Hyperdrive, 1 HP for Sensors.

3 HP for Dedicated Hangar Bays gives it a capacity of 210 Sil of vehicles. Needs 144 for it's Fighters, the rest is support craft.

With a "Zero" base Cargo Encumbrance, it can exceed the 5,000 Enc target number with 7 Dedicated Cargo Bays.

Noting that the ship has 4 available Customization Hardpoints, this leaves the ship with 17!!! Hardpoints that are not utilized.

It's a bit of a struggle to get the Crew Requirements down. I would recommend changing the default Carrier Crew to 1,000. This fits both upscaling the crew for the Ton-Falk and downscaling the crew for the Quasar.

Again, it seems that the Hardpoint Cost for Cargo and Hangar Bays is too low (or the scaling is too high).

The Retrofitted Hangar Bay from the CRB's only grants a small Silhouette value for carried craft. Maybe take that Attachment into account (or revisit it, if you did already look at it) when valuing these Dedicated Bays. Obviously, a Dedicated Bay should hold more than the Retrofitted Hangar Bay, but the two "Dedicated" Carriers that I have test built have only needed a very few HP devoted to their primary function, which doesn't seem right to me.

The Quasar could have had 20 HP devoted to Hangars and still met the Hardpoints available to the Carrier Frame. Using the (Unmodded) Retrofitted Hangar Bay for a Sil 6 ship, allows for 10 of those Attachments (yes, you can only take an Attachment once unless specified otherwise, this is just for comparison) allowing up to 200 Sil of craft. This is vs. the 3 HP of Dedicated Hangar Bays that grant 210 Sil.

This would probably require a great deal of change, and is just a suggestion, but I think the Dedicated Bays should be double the capacity of the Retrofitted Bay (maybe +5 over double, to represent the Mods to the Attachment):

Sil 5 Ship: 10 (or 15) Sil of ships per bay.

Sil 6 Ship: 20 (or 25) Sil of ships per bay.

Sil 7+ Ship: 120 (or 125) Sil of ships per bay.

At this point, maybe add: Sil 4 Ship: 5 Sil of ships per bay.

Having these bays cost 3 HP base, reduced by 1 (cumulatively) for the Carrier Frame and Transport Hulls makes real sense. Even with this change, the Quasar would only need 8 to 10 HP for its bays, still leaving it a surplus of unused HP.

I would lean towards reducing the amount of Encumbrance provided by the Cargo Bays as well, and maybe cap the scaling at Sil 7. Instead of giving Carriers/Freighters/Transports different amount of Sil/Enc/Passengers, just using their reduction of HP cost would make up the difference. It would also simplify the charts/tables in the document. Stopping at Sil 7 for the scaling of the Bays also seems like a good idea.

Note: if the Sil 6 Cargo Bay only provided 300 Enc., the Quasar could still meet it's allotted Encumbrance, with the available Hardpoints (and assuming 10 HP for Hangars). This is just a single ship, and we've already learned that many ships may fall outside this range, so I'm not suggesting resetting the Sil 6 Cargo Bay to 300. Just an example of how many Hardpoints are left on the Quasar.

Anyway, I hope that this gives you something to think about (and hopefully not a migraine!).

Cheers!

21 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

Quasar Fire-class Escort Carrier:

Technically, the fluff says that this design started as a Bulk Freighter, but that it was stripped down and rebuilt as a dedicated carrier. As such, I used the Carrier Frame, Ion Turbine Engine, and Transport Hull.

End results: Sil 6, Spd 2, Handling -2, Def 2/2/2/1, Armor 5, Hull Trauma 60 (vs. target 62), System Strain 47 (vs. target 45).

Crew: 300 (vs. target 250), Passengers: ? (vs. target 150)

Again, needs a Triumph to get "Too Tough To Hurt" (BTW: I discovered that it is a result on both the Frame and the Hull charts, so there is actually two chances to score the requisite Triumph).

Needs: Integrated Improvements result on the Frame and the Halve Crew Requirements Mod for the Frame to come close to the crew requirements.

Only needs 3 HP for Life Support (w/ total of 8 successful Mods spread among the 3 units), 6 HP for Weapons (maybe 4: even though the Tractor Beams have a Fire Arc of "All", they are Hull mounted, not Turret mounted), 1 HP for the Hyperdrive, 1 HP for Sensors.

3 HP for Dedicated Hangar Bays gives it a capacity of 210 Sil of vehicles. Needs 144 for it's Fighters, the rest is support craft.

With a "Zero" base Cargo Encumbrance, it can exceed the 5,000 Enc target number with 7 Dedicated Cargo Bays.

Noting that the ship has 4 available Customization Hardpoints, this leaves the ship with 17!!! Hardpoints that are not utilized.

It's a bit of a struggle to get the Crew Requirements down. I would recommend changing the default Carrier Crew to 1,000. This fits both upscaling the crew for the Ton-Falk and downscaling the crew for the Quasar.

Again, it seems that the Hardpoint Cost for Cargo and Hangar Bays is too low (or the scaling is too high).

The Retrofitted Hangar Bay from the CRB's only grants a small Silhouette value for carried craft. Maybe take that Attachment into account (or revisit it, if you did already look at it) when valuing these Dedicated Bays. Obviously, a Dedicated Bay should hold more than the Retrofitted Hangar Bay, but the two "Dedicated" Carriers that I have test built have only needed a very few HP devoted to their primary function, which doesn't seem right to me.

The Quasar could have had 20 HP devoted to Hangars and still met the Hardpoints available to the Carrier Frame. Using the (Unmodded) Retrofitted Hangar Bay for a Sil 6 ship, allows for 10 of those Attachments (yes, you can only take an Attachment once unless specified otherwise, this is just for comparison) allowing up to 200 Sil of craft. This is vs. the 3 HP of Dedicated Hangar Bays that grant 210 Sil.

This would probably require a great deal of change, and is just a suggestion, but I think the Dedicated Bays should be double the capacity of the Retrofitted Bay (maybe +5 over double, to represent the Mods to the Attachment):

Sil 5 Ship: 10 (or 15) Sil of ships per bay.

Sil 6 Ship: 20 (or 25) Sil of ships per bay.

Sil 7+ Ship: 120 (or 125) Sil of ships per bay.

At this point, maybe add: Sil 4 Ship: 5 Sil of ships per bay.

Having these bays cost 3 HP base, reduced by 1 (cumulatively) for the Carrier Frame and Transport Hulls makes real sense. Even with this change, the Quasar would only need 8 to 10 HP for its bays, still leaving it a surplus of unused HP.

I would lean towards reducing the amount of Encumbrance provided by the Cargo Bays as well, and maybe cap the scaling at Sil 7. Instead of giving Carriers/Freighters/Transports different amount of Sil/Enc/Passengers, just using their reduction of HP cost would make up the difference. It would also simplify the charts/tables in the document. Stopping at Sil 7 for the scaling of the Bays also seems like a good idea.

Note: if the Sil 6 Cargo Bay only provided 300 Enc., the Quasar could still meet it's allotted Encumbrance, with the available Hardpoints (and assuming 10 HP for Hangars). This is just a single ship, and we've already learned that many ships may fall outside this range, so I'm not suggesting resetting the Sil 6 Cargo Bay to 300. Just an example of how many Hardpoints are left on the Quasar.

Anyway, I hope that this gives you something to think about (and hopefully not a migraine!).

Cheers!

The carrier frame's special ability to grant extra carried sil to the hanger bays was removed from its description but I forgot to remove the table from the bays section and replace it with a text line "VSL" I don't know if you accounted for that, but yeah I agree with you despite that I need to increase the hp cost of dedicated bays. But that's going to make the action V and interceptor V harder to make... the bulk freighter hull will have to provide a larger hp reduction to compensate for increased hp costs.

Thanks for your time/effort/feedback... maybe I need to change the hp formula for the larger frames.

And you take another pass at the home one... there's been a lost of rule changes since you last looked at it.

@EliasWindrider

Okay. The MC80 from Lead By Example? I can do that.

Is the pdf on page 1 of this thread the most current?

That's the one I'm using.

18 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

Oh, on the note of Sil 4 ships cargo capacity, 500 isn't the largest. The Zeta-Class Heavy Cargo Shuttle in Dawn of Rebellion has 750.

I hope newly designed ships at Sil 4 dont come out easily having the 2 highest numbers of 500 and 750. Has anyone tried building the Zeta using Nubian yet?

25 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

Okay. The MC80 from Lead By Example? I can do that.

Is the pdf on page 1 of this thread the most current?

That's the one I'm using.

Yeah it's the most current, I think the home one is in lead by example but I forget it's designation. It's a sil 9 and i think has massive 3.

5 hours ago, Buddha Fett said:

Its just might hope that new designed ships at Sil 4 dont come out easily having the 2 highest numbers of 500 and 750. Has anyone tried building the Zeta using Nubian yet?

To get the 500 enc you need 6 cargo bays for 6*80 = 480 + the 20 base for sil 4 ship. You need the other 2 allowed bays for passenger berths to get to the 50 ish passengers after using both integrated improvements.

To get 750 enc, you'll need to put all 8 bays as cargo bays for 8*80=640 + 20 base plus 3 cargo pod frame crafting upgrades which grant either 25 enc each or 30 enc each (I forget which, I think the 30) if it's the 30 per cargo pod then you'll get 750 enc exactly as the max possible otherwise you'll miss it by 15 enc. To "duplicate" you'll want to use both integrated improvements to double the #of passengers after spending some advantage to add sil passengers as frame crafting upgrades. I have a feeling that it will both slightly mis and exceed spec because it'll likely fall short of the 50 passengers while also having the 750 enc which is an trade off proposition for the zeta.

MC80A HOME ONE TYPE HEAVY STAR CRUISER

Destroyer Frame: Needs a Triumph and 4 Advantage for Integrated Design (1/2 crew), Larger Scope, Too Big to Hurt.

Ion Turbine Engine: 5 Advantage for Enhanced Output, Enhanced Power to Deflectors. Mods: SSt +9, Def +1 in 1 arc ×2

Ship of the Line Hull: Needs a Triumph and 8 Advantage for Layered Plating ×4, Too Tough to Hurt. Mods: HTt +9, Massive +1, Def +1 in all arcs ×2

Assembly: Is there something to emulate Inspiring Presence 3???

Needs: Ion Turbine Engine (3 HP), Hyperdrive & Navicomp (1 HP), Highly Automated Systems (2 HP), Life Support (3 HP; 2 Mods each), Reinforced Frame (2 HP), Sensors (1 HP), Cargo (4 HP), Passengers (30 HP), 4 Unused Customization Hardpoints (4 HP).

Weapons (28 - 34 HP) (depending upon whether using 2 HP for Hull Mounted Tractors w/ Fire Arc All).

Leaves 16 - 22 HP for Hangars. At 2 HP each, that is 8 -11 with total Sil of 640 to 880. Needs 360 Sil for fighters, plus approximately 140 Sil for "numerous" support craft (500 Sil total).

Sil 9, Spd 2, Handling -2, Def 4/4/4/3 (vs. target 4/4/4/4), HTt 158 (vs. target 155), SSt 89 (vs. target 90)

Crew 4000 (vs. target 5480), Passengers 1200 (using only Bays, no base value), Encumbrance 80000+base (vs. target 85,000)

Hangars: 640-880 Sil (vs. target 500-ish)

Note: No "Inspiring Presence 3" equivalent.

Needs a Triumph on both Frame and Hull Rolls.

Hope this helps!

4 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

MC80A HOME ONE TYPE HEAVY STAR CRUISER

Destroyer Frame: Needs a Triumph and 4 Advantage for Integrated Design (1/2 crew), Larger Scope, Too Big to Hurt.

Ion Turbine Engine: 5 Advantage for Enhanced Output, Enhanced Power to Deflectors. Mods: SSt +9, Def +1 in 1 arc ×2

Ship of the Line Hull: Needs a Triumph and 8 Advantage for Layered Plating ×4, Too Tough to Hurt. Mods: HTt +9, Massive +1, Def +1 in all arcs ×2

Assembly: Is there something to emulate Inspiring Presence 3???

Needs: Ion Turbine Engine (3 HP), Hyperdrive & Navicomp (1 HP), Highly Automated Systems (2 HP), Life Support (3 HP; 2 Mods each), Reinforced Frame (2 HP), Sensors (1 HP), Cargo (4 HP), Passengers (30 HP), 4 Unused Customization Hardpoints (4 HP).

Weapons (28 - 34 HP) (depending upon whether using 2 HP for Hull Mounted Tractors w/ Fire Arc All).

Leaves 16 - 22 HP for Hangars. At 2 HP each, that is 8 -11 with total Sil of 640 to 880. Needs 360 Sil for fighters, plus approximately 140 Sil for "numerous" support craft (500 Sil total).

Sil 9, Spd 2, Handling -2, Def 4/4/4/3 (vs. target 4/4/4/4), HTt 158 (vs. target 155), SSt 89 (vs. target 90)

Crew 4000 (vs. target 5480), Passengers 1200 (using only Bays, no base value), Encumbrance 80000+base (vs. target 85,000)

Hangars: 640-880 Sil (vs. target 500-ish)

Note: No "Inspiring Presence 3" equivalent.

Needs a Triumph on both Frame and Hull Rolls.

Hope this helps!

So other than the inspiring presence 3 and lack of base enc and passengers would you consider it a 95% match? note I'm not sure inspiring presence should be a ship design feature or social feature based on reputation, also there is a mod to weapon batteries that can add firearcs so I'm thinking 1 hp would mount all of the tractor projectors if you want to do it in the most efficient way possible. So doing it that way how are we doing on leftover hp?

First off: Yes, it seems very workable. The Home One can be built with your current ruleset.

As for 1 HP to give all 6 Tractors FA: All. This would set the HP needed for weapons to 29 (I had it variable 28-34).

This would allow 20 HP for 10 Hangars.

Then it would have 5 free Customization HP (instead of 4 HP).

10 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

First off: Yes, it seems very workable. The Home One can be built with your current ruleset.

As for 1 HP to give all 6 Tractors FA: All. This would set the HP needed for weapons to 29 (I had it variable 28-34).

This would allow 20 HP for 10 Hangars.

Then it would have 5 free Customization HP (instead of 4 HP).

Seems like I should remove 5 hp and that would have it about right. But before I do that can you try building the sil 9 imperial ship in the same book (don't want to make a change that prevents it from being made of course it can get extra hp by increasing the crew size)

Sounds good.