12 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

The hulls in the book are about protection vs. Maneuverability vs. Minor boost to carrying cargo, and there really isn't a great deal of distinction in terms of capability in terms of protection because layered armor upgrade can boost even the sleek carapaces armor pretty darn high, and the maneuvering fins upgrade can make anything as agile as a ship with sleek carapace (handling is capped at 3). The encumbrance boost is pretty minor too. I think that the sleek carapace stands out under RAW only because it only takes 2 hp.

The vision I have for hulls is they make a ship stand out in a particular role. Freighter hugely boosts capability to haul cargo, carrier hugely boosts ability to haul smaller ships (and it's going to be in combat so it needs more armor than a freighter), transport hugely boosts ability to haul passengers with maybe minor boosts to haul cargo and smaller ships, racer boosts SPEED and handling but is weak in terms of defense, gunship has high defense and offense (ability to mount bigger and more weapons) at the cost of a larger crew,

scoutship... boosts handling but not speed, minor boost to cargo, minor boost to defense, a little more flexibility on crew/passenger sizes, maybe a few extra hp in terms of free sensors or hyperdrive or something.

Maybe a prototype hull where you get to select features from a list?

Scout and or prototype would have a huge number of mods, so many that the mechanics checks to get them all would be impossible (as in you have to spend a DP to attempt a 5 purple check).

Cost could be based on sil, but I think that the assembly stage cost is better for handling stuff whose costs depends on sil.

I can't help but think the frame is the better place to put large differentiations in roles, such as carrier vs frigate vs fighter, etc. I think you were right in your original thought of making the Carrier another silhouette 6 frame, and adding a dedicated hangar bay attachment to help boost its carrying capacity and give silhouette 8+ ships the ability to carry a large number of fighters. My reasoning for why the frame should decide the role is not only does it determine how much load a ship can take and its general size, but the exact layout of the framing would determine how open or restricted the internal space is. For example, the hangar deck of modern naval carriers and amphibious assault ships has no bulkheads throughout its entire length, which is unique compared to other ships like frigates and destroyers.

Once the frame sets the general role of the ship, the hull and attachment/advantage options determine how the ship accomplishes that role. Taking the example above and comparing a carrier versus and LHD/LHA, you could argue that a Nimitz-class carrier elected for the Deflective Plating hull (increased defense to avoid getting hit in the first place) with an extra dedicated hangar bay and Reinforced Shields. It needs to carry a full fighter wing and be able to launch and recover those aircraft reliably and quickly, so it cannot take damage on the flight deck or hangar deck, or that will severely hamper its operations. An LHD, on the other hand, carries more vehicles/shuttles with only a handful of fighters for close air support. It is also designed to operate close in shore where it may be exposed to enemy artillery fire. So you could argue it is built on a small carrier hull with a Combat Plating hull, extra Armor, and an expanded cargo bay to hold the ground vehicles as opposed to the extra hangar bay to hold more fighters.

Another comparison that supports this idea is the comparison of modern frigates and littoral combat ships. One can argue the LCS is built on the same frigate frame as its predecessor, the Perry-class frigate. However, the Perry-class was built more for fleet operations in open ocean and multi-role support in a carrier-based battle group, so it probably used a lightly armored hull for survivability and flexibility. The LCS, on the other hand, is built for close-to-shore operations with higher speeds to keep pace with small craft, reduced draft, and improved handling, so it would use the Sleek Carapace. Thinking about these comparisons, I have a new appreciation for these crafting rules, though I do see some areas where they neglected some vehicle types.

Finally, with respect to the gunboat, I am torn about how to handle that one. Looking at the Skipray specs, you could argue it's a Larger Scope starfighter. But if you are referring to a gunboat like those the Navy used to use for coastal defense, then I think that would have to be a separate frame with a special rule that allows mounting or weapons larger than normally allowed by the vehicle's silhouette at the expense of handling. My reasoning for that tradeoff is inspired by a story I read of the launching of the USS President (I think it was that ship), one of the U.S. Navy's first 6 frigates. The captains back then were allowed to decide how they outfitted their ships, and apparently her original captain was compensating for something because he mounted cannons on the frigates main gun deck larger than those she was designed to carry. The frigate nearly capsized on her way out to sea because the larger guns made her too top-heavy (hence a penalty to handling).

Sorry for the long post; I finally got my copy and have been able to start digesting the full crafting rules, and I can see some parallels with general practice of naval design that I thought I would share. Hope it's helpful!

Also, looking at what it would take to remake a CR90, I agree that the frames need additional hardpoints, maybe even 4-5 additional hardpoints.

The CR90 specs can be duplicated with a Corvette Frame, Electron Baffled Engine, and Deflective Plating Hull with advantage spent to get extra hard points during the frame and hull steps, an integrated system (Hyperdrive), extra point of armor, and enhanced output to deflectors, but that still leaves 4 hardpoints missing to be able to mount all the turbolasers and have 4 customization hardpoints left over.

So what does everyone think is reasonable for the hardpoint increase? Sil-1 additional hardpoints for each frame (suggestion based solely off the CR90 example...)?

One last thought: what if the new frame wasn't called Carrier but was Bulk Freighter instead, and then we introduced a set of attachments that trade encumbrance for extra features? For example, Carrier Conversion attachment that exchanges encumbrance for the ability to carry starfighters (not sure what the exchange rate would be), or Passenger Liner Conversion which exchanges encumbrance for passenger capacity?

In fact, maybe this is how you handle the gunship option. Use a conversion attachment that exchanges encumbrance for the ability to mount more and larger weapons. However, it should also have penalties to handling and/or hull trauma threshold as well to represent how unwieldy large weapons would be for a hull not designed to take them, or the structural weaknesses added by cutting extra gunports, so to speak.

1 hour ago, AeroEng42 said:

I can't help but think the frame is the better place to put large differentiations in roles, such as carrier vs frigate vs fighter, etc. I think you were right in your original thought of making the Carrier another silhouette 6 frame, and adding a dedicated hangar bay attachment to help boost its carrying capacity and give silhouette 8+ ships the ability to carry a large number of fighters. My reasoning for why the frame should decide the role is not only does it determine how much load a ship can take and its general size, but the exact layout of the framing would determine how open or restricted the internal space is. For example, the hangar deck of modern naval carriers and amphibious assault ships has no bulkheads throughout its entire length, which is unique compared to other ships like frigates and destroyers.

Once the frame sets the general role of the ship, the hull and attachment/advantage options determine how the ship accomplishes that role. Taking the example above and comparing a carrier versus and LHD/LHA, you could argue that a Nimitz-class carrier elected for the Deflective Plating hull (increased defense to avoid getting hit in the first place) with an extra dedicated hangar bay and Reinforced Shields. It needs to carry a full fighter wing and be able to launch and recover those aircraft reliably and quickly, so it cannot take damage on the flight deck or hangar deck, or that will severely hamper its operations. An LHD, on the other hand, carries more vehicles/shuttles with only a handful of fighters for close air support. It is also designed to operate close in shore where it may be exposed to enemy artillery fire. So you could argue it is built on a small carrier hull with a Combat Plating hull, extra Armor, and an expanded cargo bay to hold the ground vehicles as opposed to the extra hangar bay to hold more fighters.

Another comparison that supports this idea is the comparison of modern frigates and littoral combat ships. One can argue the LCS is built on the same frigate frame as its predecessor, the Perry-class frigate. However, the Perry-class was built more for fleet operations in open ocean and multi-role support in a carrier-based battle group, so it probably used a lightly armored hull for survivability and flexibility. The LCS, on the other hand, is built for close-to-shore operations with higher speeds to keep pace with small craft, reduced draft, and improved handling, so it would use the Sleek Carapace. Thinking about these comparisons, I have a new appreciation for these crafting rules, though I do see some areas where they neglected some vehicle types.

Finally, with respect to the gunboat, I am torn about how to handle that one. Looking at the Skipray specs, you could argue it's a Larger Scope starfighter. But if you are referring to a gunboat like those the Navy used to use for coastal defense, then I think that would have to be a separate frame with a special rule that allows mounting or weapons larger than normally allowed by the vehicle's silhouette at the expense of handling. My reasoning for that tradeoff is inspired by a story I read of the launching of the USS President (I think it was that ship), one of the U.S. Navy's first 6 frigates. The captains back then were allowed to decide how they outfitted their ships, and apparently her original captain was compensating for something because he mounted cannons on the frigates main gun deck larger than those she was designed to carry. The frigate nearly capsized on her way out to sea because the larger guns made her too top-heavy (hence a penalty to handling).

Sorry for the long post; I finally got my copy and have been able to start digesting the full crafting rules, and I can see some parallels with general practice of naval design that I thought I would share. Hope it's helpful!

I get where you're coming from, but... you are using a very broad definition of frame and a very narrow definition of hull where I was using a narrow definition of frame and a broad definition of hull, and the reason for my choice are.... frame and hull are not designed independently, they are simultaneously designed with feedback between them. In order to capture the feedback between hull and frame in a simple yet highly flexible system the hull needs to do more, i.e. modify the frame's capabilities.

Also by the rules, cargo doesn't get used to carry vehicles, a hanger bay does, even if those vehicles are land speeders.

2 hours ago, AeroEng42 said:

Also, looking at what it would take to remake a CR90, I agree that the frames need additional hardpoints, maybe even 4-5 additional hardpoints.

The CR90 specs can be duplicated with a Corvette Frame, Electron Baffled Engine, and Deflective Plating Hull with advantage spent to get extra hard points during the frame and hull steps, an integrated system (Hyperdrive), extra point of armor, and enhanced output to deflectors, but that still leaves 4 hardpoints missing to be able to mount all the turbolasers and have 4 customization hardpoints left over.

So what does everyone think is reasonable for the hardpoint increase? Sil-1 additional hardpoints for each frame (suggestion based solely off the CR90 example...)?

that still wouldn't come close to the encumbrance capacity of a CR-90. But under my rules a corvette frame with a freighter hull would be able to do that pretty easily. and since under my rules each frame gets a hull for zero hp, there's an extra 2+ hp of savings. As for resetting frame hp amounts...

I was going to post the rules (deliberately missing hp allotment) as a word doc and then request the community to use them to try to reproduce close approximations (because they won't match exactly) of official ships in the most efficient way that they can, post the builds and report how much hp, advantage, and triumph are needed in each step to do so, and then figure out compromise values for hp and cost that make most of them work.

Fair enough, can't put vehicles in the cargo bay. The carrier versus LHD example still works since the LHD will need additional cargo space for the supplies, munitions, and fuel to support the ground forces it carries (relative to a carrier of equal size). But either way, I understand what you mean with respect to RAW.

I understand your points as well about our different approaches to frame and hull definitions, but I still think frame should generally set role based on everything I know of naval architecture. I also get they are an integrated system and one affects the other. Perhaps the way to capture that is to give the hulls more varied mods to change how they affect the frame. Or remove the limit 1 increase in hardpoint option in the advantage table to allow the crafter to further specialize the vehicle's role with different attachments. Having frame and hull too coupled could make these rules extremely complicated and clunky to work with.

32 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

that still wouldn't come close to the encumbrance capacity of a CR-90. But under my rules a corvette frame with a freighter hull would be able to do that pretty easily. and since under my rules each frame gets a full for zero hp, there's an extra 2+ hp of savings. As for resetting frame hp amounts...

I was going to post the rules (deliberately missing hp allotment) as a word doc and then request the community to use them to try to reproduce close approximations (because they won't match exactly) of official ships in the most efficient way that they can, post the builds and report how much hp, advantage, and triumph are needed in each step to do so, and then figure out compromise values for hp and cost that make most of them work.

I wasn't looking at encumbrance or passenger capacity, mostly because I have yet to run or play a game where that was really an issue. I was looking mostly at perfoance stats. But I totally agree, encumbrance and passenger capacity seem to need a fix.

I am trying to build a spreadsheet that will make running those kinds of build checks easier. If I get it working, I will be sure to share it. Look forward to seeing your full rules.

1 hour ago, AeroEng42 said:

Fair enough, can't put vehicles in the cargo bay. The carrier versus LHD example still works since the LHD will need additional cargo space for the supplies, munitions, and fuel to support the ground forces it carries (relative to a carrier of equal size). But either way, I understand what you mean with respect to RAW.

I understand your points as well about our different approaches to frame and hull definitions, but I still think frame should generally set role based on everything I know of naval architecture. I also get they are an integrated system and one affects the other. Perhaps the way to capture that is to give the hulls more varied mods to change how they affect the frame. Or remove the limit 1 increase in hardpoint option in the advantage table to allow the crafter to further specialize the vehicle's role with different attachments. Having frame and hull too coupled could make these rules extremely complicated and clunky to work with.

The rules for frame and hull don't have to be tightly coupled, i.e if then else's are not required, if PART of the capability you would normally ascribe to the frame is instead assigned to the hull, then simple "addition" (really it's aggregation/union) can adequately represent the co-design of frame and hull without there being unwieldy interaction in the CRAFTING rules. But a freighter hull and freighter frame still make a much better freighter ship together than either separately. Please reread what I've posted, frames and hulls affect the behavior of bays, but for the most part don't affect each other's behaviors in a non-additive way. The notable exception is that the current draft of the transport hull MULTIPLIES the frames passenger capacity. And I think the transport hull is the one that needs the most revision (is the least solid in terms of concept), but so far it was my best idea about how to scale passenger capacity for both large and small sil vehicles.

Edit: two of the gunships mods also MULTIPLY the ships crew requirements.

1 hour ago, AeroEng42 said:

Fair enough, can't put vehicles in the cargo bay. The carrier versus LHD example still works since the LHD will need additional cargo space for the supplies, munitions, and fuel to support the ground forces it carries (relative to a carrier of equal size). But either way, I understand what you mean with respect to RAW.

I think that difference can be pretty easily captured as the difference between having a carrier hull on a carrier frame and a carrier hull on a frigate frame (a star wars frigate is about the size of a real world aircraft carrier)

Sorry. I did see those but must have been too tired to think them through and comprehend. You know... infant+work+4year old= no sleep most times.

Just now, jayc007 said:

Sorry. I did see those but must have been too tired to think them through and comprehend. You know... infant+work+4year old= no sleep most times.

Yeah, I have an 8.5 month old. He's our first, he's amazing like a baby out of a magazine, but my wife and I are debating about whether to have a second. I'm 42, and my wife will be 36 this year, and while by all accounts Samuel L. ... has been extremely easy to raise so far, we're not sure we could handle a second. But yesterday and today he fell out of bed (first time) he's strong enough now to move the fairly good sized pillows we surrounded him with. Normally we'll put him to bed in our bed and then move him to his crib after he's sound asleep. My wife left him alone/asleep in our bed for 5 min... And he woke up and fell out of bed. But we did have extra pillows on the floor as a back up and that broke his fall today. Yesterday was on me but in my defense it was the first time he managed that. Samuel is also sick at the moment, running a fever and runny nose ( which he had before yesterday's fall in case you're wondering if the runny nose is due to the fall [which would be extremely serious] instead of a cold, and my wife is a nurse)

I agree with Aero that the frame should lock in what the ship is.

2 hours ago, Banditks said:

I agree with Aero that the frame should lock in what the ship is.

If you can think of a *simple* way to do that and represent the "full" (actually a 95% solution would be good enough) range of variability/*flexibility* among starships, I'd be happy to scrap my plan for something that *functioned* better. Unfortunately i haven't been able to figure out how to make that actually work well.

To me, "locking in" doesn't *sound* flexible unless there is an absolutely massive number of frames to choose from which would make it unwieldy/not simple, but maybe I'm being too unimaginative about how it could work.

Things we all agree on.
We need more frames [Carrier, heavy transport, gunship, a few others]
Frames need more HP [can make barely anything out of the books]
Frames, Engine, Hull do not make a complete ship. [Key features are missing that book ships obviously benefit from]

We should use as much of the system out of the Fully Op book as we can and if we add onto the system that's already there we don't have to do complex math and balancing and we don't have to completely redefine what sets a ships roll from frame to hull or some combo of the two.

we use all the ship attachments the many books already provide and fill in the obvious blind spots.

Frames with more HPs solve quite a few problems with making ships out of the books.

We are left with just a few examples that if we take them one at a time i think we can chew through quite quickly.

If we make the list searchable that should instantly solve any 'list is too big!' problems

Really its just as simple as add HP to frames, add new frames. Then we start making attachments that fill in the gaps missing in this almost complete crafting system.
Its not complex if we use whats already there and just add to the frames and available attachments.

So @AeroEng42 has some good points... One being the limit of adding hard points... perhaps limit it to the sil, so a sil3 could add 3 and a sil8 could add 8... which to me does make a fair bit of sense.

In regards to frame vs hull...I'd say both sides have valid points. And what I've taken away from what @EliasWindrider has come up with is that the frame is in effect what the vessel is, and the hull just adds versatility and accounts for the extremes available. As in a fighter is a small sized ship that is fast and maneuverable but add in the carrier hull turns it into a dropship. Keeping the frames and hulls at a minimum number helps for keeping the rules somewhat simple and yet allows you to craft a bulk freighter or large sized transport or any other combo we have. Otherwise we would need 20 or 30 different frames to be able to make any ship you want. Then we would still need something like 10 or 15 hulls to account for their precise needs.

This way we need 10 to 15 of each to make just about any ship we want.

At first I was pretty much in the same camp as aero. My reaction to a carrier frame AND a carrier hull was ...?... but after thinking about it I do see the sense. The only other way I see to do it is to remove the hull and frame build points entirely and just make it a one shot frame is hull is frame build. Then you need to just build the systems and the engines and do the assembly. Of course that approach would mean coming up with maybe as many as 30 to 40 or even more ship types to account for the vast spectrum of vehicles available to build, with even more precision in the specs than is currently needed. I mean you would almost need to have as many ship types as there are types AND silhouettes.

And maybe that could work? Select type then select sil. And then you have your ship.

Say a carrier has

hp=5×sil

hanger bay sil cap is sil^2

Htt =sil×10

Enc= sil×something exponential

Crew = exponential based off carried sil and enc and sil.

Sst = sil×10

Ect ect ect

1 hour ago, jayc007 said:

So @AeroEng42 has some good points... One being the limit of adding hard points... perhaps limit it to the sil, so a sil3 could add 3 and a sil8 could add 8... which to me does make a fair bit of sense.

In regards to frame vs hull...I'd say both sides have valid points. And what I've taken away from what @EliasWindrider has come up with is that the frame is in effect what the vessel is, and the hull just adds versatility and accounts for the extremes available. As in a fighter is a small sized ship that is fast and maneuverable but add in the carrier hull turns it into a dropship. Keeping the frames and hulls at a minimum number helps for keeping the rules somewhat simple and yet allows you to craft a bulk freighter or large sized transport or any other combo we have. Otherwise we would need 20 or 30 different frames to be able to make any ship you want. Then we would still need something like 10 or 15 hulls to account for their precise needs.

This way we need 10 to 15 of each to make just about any ship we want.

At first I was pretty much in the same camp as aero. My reaction to a carrier frame AND a carrier hull was ...?... but after thinking about it I do see the sense. The only other way I see to do it is to remove the hull and frame build points entirely and just make it a one shot frame is hull is frame build. Then you need to just build the systems and the engines and do the assembly. Of course that approach would mean coming up with maybe as many as 30 to 40 or even more ship types to account for the vast spectrum of vehicles available to build, with even more precision in the specs than is currently needed. I mean you would almost need to have as many ship types as there are types AND silhouettes.

And maybe that could work? Select type then select sil. And then you have your ship.

Say a carrier has

hp=5×sil

hanger bay sil cap is sil^2

Htt =sil×10

Enc= sil×something exponential

Crew = exponential based off carried sil and enc and sil.

Sst = sil×10

Ect ect ect

I'd say 10-15 frames and about 5 hulls = about 75 combinations of frame and hull in about 1/4 as many pages to enumerate all combinations... add to that elegant design and larger design and you have over 200 *primary* functional options before you start customizing with engines, other systems, mods etc. But other than those numeric details @jayc007 nailed what I was trying to say in much better language than I was able to express... particularly the bits about flexibility and covering the extremes of official ships and keeping things simple.

Adding a gunship hull to a destroyer frame lets you add 16 extra turbolasers batteries with up to 3 fire arcs each so they don't need turrets and saves the need for 32 xp when trying to replicate an ISD or similar vessel.

@EliasWindrider sometimes the simularities are uncanny... my wife is a nurse also. We struggled with the decision to have a second child but our first needed the extra company o we ignored our age and took the chance. I'm now 44 and she is 41. Hope yours is feeling better soon.

2 hours ago, jayc007 said:

@EliasWindrider sometimes the simularities are uncanny... my wife is a nurse also. We struggled with the decision to have a second child but our first needed the extra company o we ignored our age and took the chance. I'm now 44 and she is 41. Hope yours is feeling better soon.

You're right about the uncanny resemblance. Your wife wouldn't happen to be Hispanic would she? Mine's Peruvian. Here's a picture from october. This picture is my lock screen and desktop wallpaper on my work computer(s) desktop and laptop] and for the Linux vm on my work desktop. So far this is my favorite picture of all time (the web size version has the JCP logo, the high res one displayed on my computers doesn't)

On 4/3/2018 at 11:55 PM, jayc007 said:

So perhaps a mod to have the ships systems in the escape pod... as in hyperdrive, sensors/comms, shield generators. Maybe that' too much but it means travel and safety is increased in the event of an emergency.

Hmm... maybe a 0 hp "escape pods" attachment restricted to sil 4 and larger... for sil 2-3 it costs 1 hp) with a hyperdrive mod, and ejectable cockpit mod, close range sensors, and a mod to increase it to short range, it out to have base stats in terms of speed (2) armor, htt and sst but capacity and escaped pod sil depends on parent vessel and is left unspecified.

On 4/5/2018 at 8:48 PM, jayc007 said:

What We need added (either as frames or as hull or some other form of attachment)

Carrier

Gunboat(maybe)-combat hull may cover this

Bulk frieghter(maybe)-extended hold hull may cover this

This, along with patrol boat or racing vehicle, are roles that a ship can take if designed this way, not a ship class.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

You're right about the uncanny resemblance. Your wife wouldn't happen to be Hispanic would she? Mine's Peruvian. Here's a picture from october. This picture is my lock screen and desktop wallpaper on my work computer(s) desktop and laptop] and for the Linux vm on my work desktop. So far this is my favorite picture of all time (the web size version has the JCP logo, the high res one displayed on my computers doesn't)

She is from Trinidad. 3/4 East Indian and 1/4 Chinese. But she speaks Spanish quite well as a second language. She has done some translating Spanish to english including a book.

Very happy looking family btw.

18 minutes ago, RusakRakesh said:

This, along with patrol boat or racing vehicle, are roles that a ship can take if designed this way, not a ship class.

Already got these covered

For patrol boat: If sil 4 can take patrol ship frame and use elegant design, choose the hull you want. If sil 3 can add gunboat hull to a star fighter.

Have a raceship hull.

It makes sense to me that the Hull should provide the greatest flexibility for design, such as a support for Carrier, bulk holds, passengers, gunboat, and put limitations on frame types that can be used with that Hull. As well as engine and shield choices for some Hull types.

Where Frame supports hull, it represents the ships structural integrity and mass, is limited by Silhouette and affects characteristics like armor, hull points (as they are used in game), handling.

Why does it have to be a specific type of hull? What if we picked out hull characteristics/features instead?

Think about it, the LHD is the size of a frigate, but it incorporates features of a carrier, transport, and frieghter.

So what if we used silhouettes as the the basis for frames and give them base stats like in the book (but boost them a little) and say that each frame's hull is capable of having x number of characteristic/designs in it.

So the LHD would have its base 5? Frigate silhouette stats granting 5 hull characteristics.

- carrier: able to carry and deploy vehicles equal to x sil.

- freighter: increased encumbrance by x sil.

- transport: increased passenger encumbrance by x sil.

- support/command: cheaper/enhanced sensors and com's

- gunship: increased ht (for more/bigger guns and armor) and hull points by x sil.

The designed could be encorporated twice to double the impact, like having multiple hanger bays or cargo holds. The same could be done with other ships.

A U-wing or LA-AT's hull design would be a combination of 2 gunship and 2 transport designs (4 total), while the LA-AT/c's hull design would be a combination of 1 gunship and 3 carrier designs. There could also be other design types like universal (not everything has to be special), eligent/sleek (faster/racing), super-laser (wait what!?), etc...

This would offer a lot more flexibility in designing a unique ship without having to create a multitude of hull types. It would also save precious ht for stuff like weapons, engines, shields, etc... (although we probably could include mods on the hull designs)

The only problem I see with this is balancing stuff out. Boosts from a hull design can't be to great or it breaks the game, and we can only penalize speed and handling so much. The builders should still require attachments and mods to make up the most of the ships abilities. We could use this to force builders to spend more ht on engine, shield, and armor to make up for the negatives.

What do you guys think? Is this too far out there?

I haven’t read the whole thread so I’ll just ask, has anyone suggested Step 1 should be a design step, using Knowledge Education (or Warfare), that impacts things like Hard Points and ease of repairs.

A simple design for example could be limited to Silhouette 3 or less, take a small amount of time, but set really low limit on Hard points, armour, etc and also make repairs more difficult.

A highly advanced design could be Silhouette 6 or less, with a much harder check, much longer time required, much larger staff, but dramatically increase Hard Points, maximum speed, Armour, HT, SST, etc.

With a series of more and more complex designs the same basic Silhouette Hull can range from a cobbled together junk air speeder to an A-Wing, and it’s not about the parts you use or a final check to join them together, your efforts to plan are important. It adds a more realistic element of design time, and makes a big differentiation between a backyard workshop and an industrial design facility. It also makes Researcher and Knowledge Specialisation actually relevant to crafting, which it should be.