Sadly, I've been too busy to contribute, but I was wondering if you're still working on this?

6 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

Sadly, I've been too busy to contribute, but I was wondering if you're still working on this?

I'll get back to it eventually, but having 2 kids under 3 not in day care is taking a lot of time, I'm doing 40 hours in 4 days, and my wife is working two 13 hour shifts on days that I'm off, so im either working or taking care of my kids or...., I'm also running a play by post.

3 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'll get back to it eventually, but having 2 kids under 3 not in day care is taking a lot of time, I'm doing 40 hours in 4 days, and my wife is working two 13 hour shifts on days that I'm off, so im either working or taking care of my kids or...., I'm also running a play by post.

That's a lot. Best of luck (and sleep)!

Not sure if this has come up with anybody else before. But the sil limits for dedicated hanger bays are kinda wonky. As is, a sil 8 ship with 8 dedicated hangerbays could hold 86 Nebulon Bs. I was thinking that perhaps the sil limit should be restricted to sil 4 ships, with each bay allowing you to carry 1 sil 5-6 ship in it.

Doing it that way would keep it a bit more on the reasonable side and involve less physics breaking (I know its Star Wars but there are limits). Instead of being able to hold 86 Neb Bs, it could instead hold 8. You could mix it however you want too, maybe have 2 Neb bs and use the other hangers to support fighters/transports

Long time lurker, first time 'contributing'...

The old 'Saga Ed. Starships of the Galaxy' had an interesting mechanic (that I always thought added some nice/easy narrative options) where you could apply a template to existing/crafted ships to alter its stats, introduce drawbacks/benefits, and get an 'Advanced Ship,' 'Archaic Ship,' or 'Junker' for example. I was wondering if there was any interest/consideration for implementing these as an element? There's a certain amount of this already in place with the revised rule set, but, with some work, might be an easy way to add in as a plug-in?

On 3/30/2020 at 10:07 AM, surferblue78 said:

Long time lurker, first time 'contributing'...

The old 'Saga Ed. Starships of the Galaxy' had an interesting mechanic (that I always thought added some nice/easy narrative options) where you could apply a template to existing/crafted ships to alter its stats, introduce drawbacks/benefits, and get an 'Advanced Ship,' 'Archaic Ship,' or 'Junker' for example. I was wondering if there was any interest/consideration for implementing these as an element? There's a certain amount of this already in place with the revised rule set, but, with some work, might be an easy way to add in as a plug-in?

My favorite saga template was prototype, the one you didn't mention... but this system layers 3 different templates with crafting upgrades so it does that and way more... the closest analog is the paramilitary conversion in dangerous covenants.

On 4/7/2020 at 8:47 PM, EliasWindrider said:

My favorite saga template was prototype, the one you didn't mention... but this system layers 3 different templates with crafting upgrades so it does that and way more... the closest analog is the paramilitary conversion in dangerous covenants.

Actually, that's one of my favourites too (along with 'Advanced Ship') and I was fiddling around with both!

But, yeah, long story short, given everything that goes into the layered templates it really does end up being a relatively moot point. And starts to get rather complicated and system-breaky/over-powered. However, it does work better, and has more potential, as a 'conversion' option for existing ship profiles. And that is more in line with what the Saga Ed. was doing with the templates anyway. I will maybe try and get a couple examples up over the weekend, if anyone is curious.

Advanced Ship [Template]

• SIL: N/A
• ARM: N/A
• HAND: +1
• DEF: +(SIL/2) rounded down
• SPD: N/A
• HTT: +SIL
• SST: +SIL
• ALT: x2
• SENS: +1 band
• CREW: N/A
• ENC: N/A
• PASS: N/A
• WPNS: +1 damage to all
  • +1 boost or automatic +1 Adv. might more narrative?
• HP: -2 or (SIL/2) rounded up, whichever is higher (can still be applied to ships w/ ≤1HP)
• COST: x1.5
• SPECIAL 1: +8hrs/week Hard Computer/Mechanic check or move one component up on the damage track
  • Limit to Comms/Hyperdrive/Navi/Sensors/Shields/Engines?

Prototype Ship [Template]

• SIL: N/A
• ARM: N/A
• HAND: +1
• DEF: +(SIL/2) rounded down
• SPD: +1
• HTT: -SIL
• SST: +SIL
• ALT: N/A
• SENS: +1 band
• CREW: N/A
• ENC: N/A
• PASS: N/A
• HP: -(SIL/2) rounded up
• COST: x1.5
• SPECIAL 1: Randomly choose 1 (or 2) benefit and drawback (can't have benefit and drawback from same category):
  • ARM: +1 / -1
  • HTT: +Sil / -Sil
  • SST: +Sil / -Sil
  • DEF: +(Sil/2) round down / -(Sil/2) round up
  • SPD: +1 / -1
  • CREW: -70% / +30%
  • PASS: +50% / -50%
  • ENC: +50% / -50%
  • CRAFT: +25% / -75%
    • Saga Ed. actually lists this as benefit -75% and drawback +25%, but the example included with the template reflects +25% / -75%.
  • WPNS: x2 one weapon type / x.5 one weapon type
• SPECIAL 2: +8hrs/month Avg. Computer/Mechanic check or lose all +abilities and benefits but not -abilities and drawbacks.

Interesting...

Large thread, don't know if this has been covered, but there is a really weird modification statement for Scout Ships

Page 8, last paragraph

"1 increase defense in all arcs by one or on 1 arc by 2 Mod"

I presume this was reversed and should read (to the effect of) 1 increase defense by one, in one arc, or in all arcs by 2 mods?

On 8/8/2020 at 5:20 PM, Kencyr said:

Large thread, don't know if this has been covered, but there is a really weird modification statement for Scout Ships

Page 8, last paragraph

"1 increase defense in all arcs by one or on 1 arc by 2 Mod"

I presume this was reversed and should read (to the effect of) 1 increase defense by one, in one arc, or in all arcs by 2 mods?

It's as written, You can add +2 to 1 arc, OR add +1 to all arcs

note sil 4 and smaller ships only have 2 arcs so it's 1x +2 OR 2x +1 which is numerically the same

For sil 5 and larger ships have 4 arcs so people would likely choose +1 to all arcs (so the don't have holes, smaller ships get to choose the zone they attack the larger ship from)

Seriously if I gave people the option of

+1 to 1 arc

OR

+2 to all arcs

What game mechanical reason would anyone have to not choose +2 to all arcs (that's a +4 for sil<= 4 or a +8 sor sil>=5 vis a +1, those are in no way comparable)?

@EliasWindrider

Greetings!

I hope all is well with you and your family!

I'm curious: Have you come up with pricing for the Modular Pods section yet?

6 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

Greetings!

I hope all is well with you and your family!

I'm curious: Have you come up with pricing for the Modular Pods section yet?

My wife is pregnant with our third child, and the first 2 are getting rambunctious. No work on this in a long time.

Yikes!

@EliasWindrider Just found these rules while contemplating the prospect of running a custom speeder and swoop business (with data smuggling on the side). I'm impressed with my first glance, since I felt there was something "off" about the Fully Operational rules, and it seems you're addressing the issues I had well. Might also fiddle with them to design a ship made as a flying garage and workshop for when the company expands beyond the starting Wayfarer I was thinking of. Either that, or I might design an optimized garage pod. I suppose it'll depend on how 'crunchy' the GM I wind up with will be about the business.

Good luck taking care of your family. I'll be catching up on the thread in the mean time.

1 hour ago, BronzeDog said:

@EliasWindrider Just found these rules while contemplating the prospect of running a custom speeder and swoop business (with data smuggling on the side). I'm impressed with my first glance, since I felt there was something "off" about the Fully Operational rules, and it seems you're addressing the issues I had well. Might also fiddle with them to design a ship made as a flying garage and workshop for when the company expands beyond the starting Wayfarer I was thinking of. Either that, or I might design an optimized garage pod. I suppose it'll depend on how 'crunchy' the GM I wind up with will be about the business.

Good luck taking care of your family. I'll be catching up on the thread in the mean time.

I'm glad you're finding it useful.

After comparing the value of the Modular Pod Docking Clamp vs. the Dedicated Hangar Bay, I would suggest that the Hard Point cost of the Modular Pod Docking Clamp be reduced to Silhouette -1 (minimum of 1).

My reasoning is this: take a Sil 4 ship as a "pocket carrier". Assume we attach the maximum of 4 MPDC's all Sil 3. This is 12 HP, decreases Handling by -4 when all 4 Sil 3 Pods are attached (in this case, 4 fighters).

Assuming a suboptimal hull, a Sil 4 ship can have up to 4 Dedicated Hangar Bays for 12 HP (with no penalty to Handling), each capable of holding one Sil 3 vehicle, along with six Sil 2 vehicles!

With the Transport Hull, this drops to 8 HP!

It seems illogical that a pod carried externally should require more "space" than an internal hangar, which would need about double the volume to allow vehicles to land and take off.

If the cost of the MPDC was Sil -1, it would be a little more reasonable.

Just some thoughts!

Cheers!

On 10/24/2020 at 7:16 AM, salamar_dree said:

After comparing the value of the Modular Pod Docking Clamp vs. the Dedicated Hangar Bay, I would suggest that the Hard Point cost of the Modular Pod Docking Clamp be reduced to Silhouette -1 (minimum of 1).

My reasoning is this: take a Sil 4 ship as a "pocket carrier". Assume we attach the maximum of 4 MPDC's all Sil 3. This is 12 HP, decreases Handling by -4 when all 4 Sil 3 Pods are attached (in this case, 4 fighters).

Assuming a suboptimal hull, a Sil 4 ship can have up to 4 Dedicated Hangar Bays for 12 HP (with no penalty to Handling), each capable of holding one Sil 3 vehicle, along with six Sil 2 vehicles!

With the Transport Hull, this drops to 8 HP!

It seems illogical that a pod carried externally should require more "space" than an internal hangar, which would need about double the volume to allow vehicles to land and take off.

If the cost of the MPDC was Sil -1, it would be a little more reasonable.

Just some thoughts!

Cheers!

On the surface it seems reasonable. Can you try building a few ships and show the work

Laat carrier (for at-te)

Hyperdrive sled for delta starfighter https://star-wars-rpg-ffg.fandom.com/wiki/Nu-class_Transport

Consular (AOR version)

Wayfarer https://star-wars-rpg-ffg.fandom.com/wiki/Wayfarer-class_Medium_Freighter?mobile-app=false

I'm worried about having too many leftover hp.

Syliure-31 Hyperspace Ring

Starfighter Frame:

Sil 3, HTT 10, SST 6, Spd 6, Handling +3
Base HP: 11
Ion Drive Array (-4 HP, +1 Spd mod), Race Ship Hull (-1 HP, +2 Handling mod), Modular Docking Pod Clamp (-2 HP, Data Link mod), Highly Automated Systems (-2 HP), Hyperdrive Module (-1 HP, Class 1)
1 HP remaining

I gave it the Speed/Handling to take into account the reduction for a mothership/pod combo of equal size.

However, I don't feel that any of these stats work, as the Hyperspace Ring acts more like a removable Attachment (it mentions Ion Engines and a Class 1 Hyperdrive, but nothing else).

Wayfarer-class Medium Freighter

Sil 5, Spd 3, Handling -2, Def 1/1/1/2, Armor 4, HTT 32, SST 20, Hyperdrive 2, Backup 14, Navicomputer, Crew 10, Passengers 6, Cargo 850, Consumables 3 months, 1 Weapon, Custom HP 5.

Transport Frame (HP 27, HTT 30+2, Enc 20+80, Larger Scope, Integrated Improvement +4 crew, Officers Quarters +2 crew/-2 pass, Reinforced Construction ×2)

Single Ion Coil (-2 HP, Spd 1+2, SST 10+10, Speed Increase ×2, Increase SST ×2)

Transport Hull (Armor 1+3, Handling -2, Increase Armor ×2, Incr Def ×1, Increase Handling ×1, Layered Plating ×1, Cargo Pod ×1)

Modular Pod Docking Clamp (-3 HP)
Hyperdrive Module (-1 HP)
Life Support Systems (-1 HP, Increase ×3)
Navicomputer, Basic Sensors (0 HP)
1 Weapon (-1 HP)
Customization HP: 5 (-5 HP)

Only uses 13 of 27 HP!

Bulk Cargo Pod (reduces Handling by -1)

Sil 4, Enc 750 (Transport Frame, Basic Hull)

Transport Frame (HP 17, cargo 20)
Basic Hull (Cargo Pods ×3, cargo 90)
Dedicated Cargo Bay ×8 (-16 HP, cargo 640)

Note: The Wayfarer is a poor design. It is definitely an outlier.

Based on what I'm seeing, the cargo capacity of it's "modular" cargo container would just use it's normal HP (but even then, it's not efficiently using it's HP).

<shrugs>

Consular-class Light Assault Cruiser

Sil 5, Spd 3, Handling -2, Def 2/1/1/1, Armor 5, HTT 46 SST 24

Hyperdrive Class 2, Backup 14
Navicomputer, Sensors: Long
Crew: 9
Pass: up to 16 depending upon configuration
Cargo: up to 3200 depending upon config.
Consumables: 8 months
Weapons: 5
Customization HP: 4

The Pods are Sil 3.

(230 max Enc for a cargo pod, the salon pod carries 10 Passengers)

This means that the base ship carries 6 Passengers and has 2,970 Enc minimum.

Patrol Ship Frame (HP 27, HTT 40+6, Enc 20+765, Officers Quarters +1 crew/-1 pass [9 crew/9 pass], Reinforced Construction ×1)

Ion Turbine Engine (-3 HP, Spd 1+1, SST 25+3-4, Def 1+1/0+1/0+1/0+1, Incr Spd ×1, Enhanced Output ×1, Enhanced Power to the Deflectors, Fine-Tuned Circuits ×3)

Bulk Freighter Hull (Armor 1+4, Handling -4+3-1, Increase Armor ×2, Increase Handling ×1, Layered Plating ×2, Manuevering Fins ×2, Cargo Pod ×3)

Dedicated Cargo Bay ×2 (-4 HP, 2050 Enc)

Modular Pod Docking Clamp, Sil 3 (-2 HP)

Hyperdrive (-1 HP)
Sensors (-1 HP)
Life Support ×3 (-3 HP, total of 7 mods)
Reinforced Frame (-2 HP)
Oversized External Weapons Mount (-2 HP, Linked ×1)
Weapons ×5 (-5 HP)
Customization HP (-4 HP)

Exact use of HPs, Passengers are slightly higher, Cargo slightly lower.

Otherwise, a pretty close match.

The Wayfarer and Consular are both Sil 5, and couldn't be more different!

@EliasWindrider

At this point, I actually feel that the HP cost of the Modular Pod Docking Clamp should be something like:

Sil 2 = 1 HP

Sil 3 = 2 HP

Sil 4 = 4 HP

Not sure if that should continue (and personally not sure of the max Sil of a Pod).

Also, with a bunch of Pods just being "cargo", or otherwise unmanned, it seems maybe a Pod Frame would be in order.

Perhaps Sil 3 Base

Crew 0, Pass 0, Cargo 0,

HP: VSL+2

Special: Automatically has Mothership Docking Clamp; Dedicated Bays are 1 HP less; and counts as 1 Sil Larger for Dedicated Cargo Bays.

Just spitballing here.

Oh, and other frames can still be Pods.

1 hour ago, salamar_dree said:

The Wayfarer and Consular are both Sil 5, and couldn't be more different!

@EliasWindrider

At this point, I actually feel that the HP cost of the Modular Pod Docking Clamp should be something like:

Sil 2 = 1 HP

Sil 3 = 2 HP

Sil 4 = 4 HP

Not sure if that should continue (and personally not sure of the max Sil of a Pod).

Also, with a bunch of Pods just being "cargo", or otherwise unmanned, it seems maybe a Pod Frame would be in order.

Perhaps Sil 3 Base

Crew 0, Pass 0, Cargo 0,

HP: VSL+2

Special: Automatically has Mothership Docking Clamp; Dedicated Bays are 1 HP less; and counts as 1 Sil Larger for Dedicated Cargo Bays.

Just spitballing here.

Oh, and other frames can still be Pods.

I can think about another frame...

But sil-1 for pods minimum 1 (so sil 1 one pods wouldn't cost 0 hp)

And unused hp could factor into a credits cost reduction.

I think we statted the LAAT/c up-thread. I remember the discussion about how the LAAT/c is only Sil 3 but the AT-TE is Sil 4 was problematic, and that the LAAT/c should be Sil 4...

33 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

I think we statted the LAAT/c up-thread. I remember the discussion about how the LAAT/c is only Sil 3 but the AT-TE is Sil 4 was problematic, and that the LAAT/c should be Sil 4...

I think we had to go sil 4 for the last (can you check)

There's a talent that let's you treat a ship as being 1 silhouette smaller than it is.... if this was a mothership frame specific crafting upgrade similar to unusually agile that provided that talent as an innate talent then the laat could really be sil 4 but treated as sil 3 (which was conveniently omitted for space/convenience in RAW stats)

Edit: I think I was thinking of tricky target no quite the same thing... but a crafting upgrade like compact design that let a ship be treated as one sil smaller after construction... maybe have it be a triumph needed on both frame and hull