1 hour ago, ArchAngel3535 said:

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 like this idea. It seems rather simple and yet it presents a great deal of flexability

1 hour ago, Richardbuxton said:

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.

No one has suggested this. This is what I thought we were GOING to get in FO. Man was I wrong. I do think it could be great to add to the rule set we are creating here... perhaps as the way to acquire the template... as in make your own.

Both of those are an interesting take. I think they are great suggestions. One thing to keep in mind is we are trying to... 'finish and fix' the rules we got not necessarily rewrite them entirely.

4 hours ago, ArchAngel3535 said:

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?

Cconceptually it could work, but a raceship hull is a deliberately stripped down hull, it's not something that you should be able to combine with a gunship hull, but you aren't really talking about hulls just their characteristics... hmm. Personally if hulls provide different unique capabilities, that are balanced against each other.... I don't see why a hull should have to take any hard points (hp), not choosing another hull type instead of this one represents an opportunity cost/design decision just fine in my book. And O(5) hulls isn't a multitude.

5 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

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.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

Cconceptually it could work, but a raceship hull is a deliberately stripped down hull, it's not something that you should be able to combine with a gunship hull, but you aren't really talking about hulls just their characteristics... hmm. Personally if hulls provide different unique capabilities, that are balanced against each other.... I don't see why a hull should have to take any hard points (hp), not choosing another hull type instead of this one represents an opportunity cost/design decision just fine in my book. And O(5) hulls isn't a multitude.

I was trying to stay away from designating specific hull types. The idea was to combine several characteristics to create a unique hull. I was trying to grant as much flexibility as possible without requiring spending hp, but still retain the cost/design decision making. Its kind of like the design step that Richard suggested as the builders are literally designing their own ship instead of selecting a prefabricated template. If they want a racing ship, they would simply design it with racing characteristics, but if they wanted a fast ship for, lets say blockade running, they may want it to have it be a little beefier to help ensure they survive the trip. A successful design might give a boost or upgrade the skill checks during construction/assembly or a free mod, while a despair may lead to a fatal unseen design flaw.

"So you designed a silhouette 4 pirate ship hull/frame using just the gunship and freighter characteristics, granting increased encumbrance and over-sized weapons capabilities, but as you near the end of construction, you realize the ship is so bulky that it will generate -4/1 handling/speed instead of the -2/3 you were expecting, requiring you to spend/relocate/scrap precious hp/credits on hull mods to decrease the handling/speed penalties or buy more powerful engines and engine mods."

You could do it just like the spell system from Genesys. Each Silhouette is set up like a separate spell:

A basic difficulty is set for a Silhouette, which grants a simpler Hull design at reduced costs to standard.

Then a table of additional features is made with options to improve or increase certain stats at the cost of an increased difficulty. Each additional feature also increases the time and cost required.

An option on the list of additional features for a Silhouette 3 Vehicle could be as simple as

“Flexible Design: Increase the Difficulty to craft the Hull by 1, Add 1 Hard Point to the finished ship per rank in Knowledge Education”

or as complex as

”Built for Battle: The frame of the ship is strengthened to be prepared for combat. Increase the difficulty to craft the Hull by 2, if successful then the final Hull Threshold of the ship is increased by 2 and the ship has a single free hard point for a Weapons system (which must be purchased or built separately). 2 Advantage may be spent on the check to increase the Hull Threshold by a further 2 or add an additional weapons system, spend a Triumph to increase the final Armour by 1.

With this system you completely rewrite the current table for spending advantage and Triumph so that it’s all about cost and time and narrative things. although perhaps keep the Threat/Despair table.

Edit: the basic designs could instead be a vehicle type too I guess. Speeder bike (sil 2-3, cheap, fast, brittle), Air Speeder (cheap, upgrades for light weapons), Fighter/bomber (t-16 for the basic, with all sorts of upgrades including Silhouette 4), Transport (Silhouette 3-6, slow with lots of cargo space, options for hangers and weapons are difficult). Etc etc.

You could probably do the same thing for all three components. Engines are slow with bad handling, but easy to craft, add a few additional features and they go faster and handle better, with some features boosting things like shields or the power for sensors, even hardening the against ion damage etc.

You also then open up the possibility for workshop and facility equipment that reduces the difficulty of the check, or adds an additional feature for free.

Thinking this over I don’t know why they didn’t do this with all the crafting systems, I guess the idea hadn’t come to them yet, and changing things for this book would seem inconsistent. Perhaps the books for Genesys will change that.

Imagine if you had a standard “Melee Weapon” template, a Damage +1 weapon of your choosing, Encumbrance 2, Crit 4.

The enhancements could be:

keen edge: +1 Damage, pierce 2, Crit -1

bludgeoning: +1 Damage, disorient equal to ranks in Education

Two handed: +2 Damage, + 2 Encumbrance, Cumbersome 3, Crit -1, Defensive 1

etc

I've not read the whole thread yet, and i've not received my copy of FO, so please excuse me if this is a stupid comment/idea, but from some of the discussion i've read, it seems one of the major issues is that you can make starfighters with armor 11 or something silly. Now, my question is this, would it not make sense to have a pool of resources, that you spend from to pick your desired armor/speed/handling. That way you could make an insane 11-armor starfighter ... but it would be more like a space-turtle, i.e barely able to move and handle.

Example (semi-arbitrary numbers picked)

Spaceship A with starting values of: Armor 0, Speed 0, Handling -5

Pool Size: 10.

Now i could choose to make this ship into different variants depending on what i wanted the ship for:

Armor 5, Speed 5, Handling -5,

Armor 2, Speed 4, Handling -1

Armor 1, Speed 1, Handling +3

Obviously the starting points and poolsize would have to be adjusted, and maybe they would be depending on which template you select.

21 hours ago, ArchAngel3535 said:

I was trying to stay away from designating specific hull types. The idea was to combine several characteristics to create a unique hull. I was trying to grant as much flexibility as possible without requiring spending hp, but still retain the cost/design decision making. Its kind of like the design step that Richard suggested as the builders are literally designing their own ship instead of selecting a prefabricated template. If they want a racing ship, they would simply design it with racing characteristics, but if they wanted a fast ship for, lets say blockade running, they may want it to have it be a little beefier to help ensure they survive the trip. A successful design might give a boost or upgrade the skill checks during construction/assembly or a free mod, while a despair may lead to a fatal unseen design flaw.

"So you designed a silhouette 4 pirate ship hull/frame using just the gunship and freighter characteristics, granting increased encumbrance and over-sized weapons capabilities, but as you near the end of construction, you realize the ship is so bulky that it will generate -4/1 handling/speed instead of the -2/3 you were expecting, requiring you to spend/relocate/scrap precious hp/credits on hull mods to decrease the handling/speed penalties or buy more powerful engines and engine mods."

I don't see how you could balance multiple levels of raceship while making them individually useful, raceship is almost completely exclusive to other hull types even if you're doing capabilities of hulls instead of hulls. The nth level raceship is +1 speed, handling=3, a small boost to shields and armor. If you stripped out the shields and armor that'd mean they could get more speed, and more speed would be broken.

On 4/9/2018 at 1:54 AM, Richardbuxton said:

You could do it just like the spell system from Genesys. Each Silhouette is set up like a separate spell:

A basic difficulty is set for a Silhouette, which grants a simpler Hull design at reduced costs to standard.

Then a table of additional features is made with options to improve or increase certain stats at the cost of an increased difficulty. Each additional feature also increases the time and cost required.

An option on the list of additional features for a Silhouette 3 Vehicle could be as simple as

“Flexible Design: Increase the Difficulty to craft the Hull by 1, Add 1 Hard Point to the finished ship per rank in Knowledge Education”

or as complex as

”Built for Battle: The frame of the ship is strengthened to be prepared for combat. Increase the difficulty to craft the Hull by 2, if successful then the final Hull Threshold of the ship is increased by 2 and the ship has a single free hard point for a Weapons system (which must be purchased or built separately). 2 Advantage may be spent on the check to increase the Hull Threshold by a further 2 or add an additional weapons system, spend a Triumph to increase the final Armour by 1.

With this system you completely rewrite the current table for spending advantage and Triumph so that it’s all about cost and time and narrative things. although perhaps keep the Threat/Despair table.

Edit: the basic designs could instead be a vehicle type too I guess. Speeder bike (sil 2-3, cheap, fast, brittle), Air Speeder (cheap, upgrades for light weapons), Fighter/bomber (t-16 for the basic, with all sorts of upgrades including Silhouette 4), Transport (Silhouette 3-6, slow with lots of cargo space, options for hangers and weapons are difficult). Etc etc.

Interesting idea. Would you see it still broken into pieces (frame, engines, etc) or just one big assemble the parts then roll? If not separate components, I could see it being two rolls, design and building.

I would break it up, although into how many parts I don’t know.

As I've seen the rules, I'll join in now! I think my biggest concern is the way things that clearly depend on ship volume (Encumbrance, passengers) are linearly related to Sil, even though Sil is pretty much exponential. That applies to base values and increases from advantages and mods.

For some perspective:

Sil 4 existing Freighters/Transports - Average 5.5 passengers (2-4), average 120 enc (60-200)

Sil 5 existing Freighters/Transports (outliers slaver/penumbra removed) - Average 38 passengers (0-115), average 1931 enc (200-10000)

Sil 6 existing Freighters/Transports - Average 455 passengers (65-1000), average 30000 enc (10000-70000)

So we're probably looking at a passenger or freighter hull, with a base for freighter at these sils of maybe 100/2000/40000 enc, base for passenger of 3/30/300, and the ability to swap from one to the other at a scale based on that ratio or something like it.

So @EliasWindrider ... How goes the battle? It's been rather quiet the past week after a plethora of ideas came in. So any further ideas / plans / decisions?

19 hours ago, jayc007 said:

So @EliasWindrider ... How goes the battle? It's been rather quiet the past week after a plethora of ideas came in. So any further ideas / plans / decisions?

I was busy with taxes, last night I started typing it up in @DangerShine Designs AoR power point template but today my left wrist is bothering me, so I'm not going to work on it today

3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I was busy with taxes, last night I started typing it up in @DangerShine Designs AoR power point template but today my left wrist is bothering me, so I'm not going to work on it today

Gotta take care of yourself first. We understand... and death and taxes... too bad it's not death TO taxes

On 4/18/2018 at 7:56 PM, EliasWindrider said:

I was busy with taxes, last night I started typing it up in @DangerShine Designs AoR power point template but today my left wrist is bothering me, so I'm not going to work on it today

I figured I ought to provide readers with a way to get the power point templates so

On 2/6/2018 at 12:34 PM, DangerShine Designs said:

hey all,

So I have started putting together adventures and sourcebooks for my campaigns and, being sort of OCD about certain things in life, I felt compelled to try and give them a look and feel cohesive with FFG's stuff. Building on the work of other people on these forums (such as adding page backgrounds from previous templates by people such as Depicacyx as well as others that I'm currently unable to find the original threads and give credit to (sorry!)), I have thrown together a PowerPoint template that should make generating your own content a little easier for anyone (like me) who has greater experience with PowerPoint than they do with (say) as Desktop Publishing Software package. I also find PPT just so much easier to use for adding pictures and reformatting text than Word.

I plan on 'publishing' the adventures to the community when they are finished and have been play tested by my group but while I'm still tinkering I thought I would share the template for anyone putting together their own stuff. I plan on creating an AoR and FaD templates in the next few days, and will upload those too when complete.

Notes/features:

• click the center box on the title page to add your own image
• opening crawl page
• table of contents page
• pages with pre-formatted text and heading boxes
• pages with just text boxes
• blank 'starfield' pages for adding planets
• credits page
• the initial page as well as the master have the dice icons printed for copy/pasting

EotE PowerPoint Template v0.91 (The template got super-bloated, have uploaded a small copy)

AoR PowerPoint Template v0.9

Fonts (Aurebesh, SF Distant Galaxy, Teuton, SWRPGIcons, these will need to be added or you'll have funky text and no symbols)

Feedback, comments and questions very welcome!

To see the full list of pages, just hit View > Slide Master

Here are thumbnails of the layout:

oh and I'm on page 4, page 1 is a cover and I'm using this

on the cover, because it's the most iconic Nubian starship

28 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I figured I ought to provide readers with a way to get the power point templates so

oh and I'm on page 4, page 1 is a cover and I'm using this

on the cover, because it's the most iconic Nubian starship

And still only one like to give...

Thanks!

Here's what I have so far

https://www.mediafire.com/file/ybl46t4cq4wmhs4/TheNubianDesignCollectivesWholeVehicleCraftingHandbook.pptx

it's not even close to a first draft (maybe version 0.1), but I wanted to get some early feedback about the direction I'm taking.

On 21/04/2018 at 2:41 AM, EliasWindrider said:

Here's what I have so far

https://www.mediafire.com/file/ybl46t4cq4wmhs4/TheNubianDesignCollectivesWholeVehicleCraftingHandbook.pptx

it's not even close to a first draft (maybe version 0.1), but I wanted to get some early feedback about the direction I'm taking.

So far so good...

Just on tye first read... not to be nitpicky but do you think a sil3 ship with a hanger bay needs 10 carried sil per bay? That's 1 speeder (or sil2 fighter) and 8 sil1 speeder bikes. I'd think maybe 5 would do. Even the sil 4's 15 might be a bit much. That would be 1 fighter and 6 speeders in the shuttle.

Also... Just to throw a wrench in the plans... what do you think of allowing elegant design and larger project to be taken twice? Or maybe even 3 times?(Although that might be a bit too much). It would probably require some sort of vsl application on available hp as well as enc and pax, perhaps even crew, but it could make sense.

I can't wait to start using these rules to test build some existing ships as well as some of my own designs.

9 hours ago, jayc007 said:

So far so good...

Just on tye first read... not to be nitpicky but do you think a sil3 ship with a hanger bay needs 10 carried sil per bay? That's 1 speeder (or sil2 fighter) and 8 sil1 speeder bikes. I'd think maybe 5 would do. Even the sil 4's 15 might be a bit much. That would be 1 fighter and 6 speeders in the shuttle.

Also... Just to throw a wrench in the plans... what do you think of allowing elegant design and larger project to be taken twice? Or maybe even 3 times?(Although that might be a bit too much). It would probably require some sort of vsl application on available hp as well as enc and pax, perhaps even crew, but it could make sense.

I can't wait to start using these rules to test build some existing ships as well as some of my own designs.

I just updated the link.

regarding the sil3 ship. We're talking about a sil3 dropship that is purpose built to do that, you can't put a "dedicated cargo" on an existing stock ship, and the 8 sil 1 speeder bikes would be like the undicur jump speeders when they're folded up into crates sitting in a corner stacked on top of each other, so yeah I think it's pretty reasonable. sil 1is human size so were talking about carrying 8 humans in flight armor and a speeder, that doesn't seem unreasonable for a drop ship.

and in the latest update the space station frame can receive larger project, elegant design, and integrated improvement twice. I'm thinking about letting destroyer take larger project twice too. for the rest of the frames I'd want to avoid it, I'm trying to keep away from sil 1 starfighters and a sil 3 patrol ship. a sil 3 patrol ship with a race ship hull could have speed 7 BEFORE adding high output ion turbines and I don't want to go there.

Have you considered changing the base encumbrance to scale? If you multiplied a base number by the vsl it could make scaling easier. Then you could add modifiers based on the frame & hull. For example airspeeders have a base of 5 so a sil 2 airspeeder would end up with an encumbrance of 10, which is less than the trunk of a car. And a sil 4 airspeeder, which is starting to look like a flying bus would have an encumbrance 75 which would be more appropriate given the size. Give freighters a base of 10 and you're falcon sized ship would be starting at 150, while a wayfarer size would be 250.

Then the cargo bay...bay could be as simple as increase the frame base by 5. Or possibly even count the vsl as one size larger when calculating final encumbrance.

14 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Have you considered changing the base encumbrance to scale? If you multiplied a base number by the vsl it could make scaling easier. Then you could add modifiers based on the frame & hull. For example airspeeders have a base of 5 so a sil 2 airspeeder would end up with an encumbrance of 10, which is less than the trunk of a car. And a sil 4 airspeeder, which is starting to look like a flying bus would have an encumbrance 75 which would be more appropriate given the size. Give freighters a base of 10 and you're falcon sized ship would be starting at 150, while a wayfarer size would be 250.

Then the cargo bay...bay could be as simple as increase the frame base by 5. Or possibly even count the vsl as one size larger when calculating final encumbrance.

Yeah I did consider it, the numbers work better this way. The spread of encumbrances is pointwise closer for the quick informal tally of reference ships I did.

BTW 5*VSL for sil 2 is 25 not 10.

Also a dedicated cargo bay looks something like 3^sil for everything except a freighter hull for which it looks something like 4^sil. This comes out of length being something like 2.3^sil. So enc has to be exponential too, and then it was a question of finding a base (or rather 2 bases, because dedicated freighters didn't fit into the same category as everything else) that adding a small number of cargo bays would explain/get close to most ships.

BTW the ir-3f looks like it has a patrol ship frame and freighter hull and about a little less than 2 dedicated cargo bays, maybe it converted some cargo space to something else but I'm not going to worry about that level of detail) it's only 320 enc off. Maybe a rule that if you have more than 1 dedicated cargo bays no more than 1 hp can be recovered by subtracting off the enc of 1 dedicated cargo bay for a ship 1 silhouette smaller. That would get things a lot closer but... I'm not sure I'm willing to go with that level of complication.

If a yt-1300 equivalent had a freighter frame but not freighter hull then spending 2 hp would get it 180 enc and 1 hp would get it 100, recovering 1 hp from the enc would get it to 180-30=150 enc for 1 hp.

A hwk-1000 would be a freighter frame with a race ship hull with 1 hp spent to give it 100 enc. A hwk-290 would be a freighter hull with elegant design and 2 hp to get it to 20+30+30=80, 1 hp could be recovered to get it to 70 enc.

21 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Yeah I did consider it, the numbers work better this way. The spread of encumbrances is pointwise closer for the quick informal tally of reference ships I did.

BTW 5*VSL for sil 2 is 25 not 10.

Also a dedicated cargo bay looks something like 3^sil for everything except a freighter hull for which it looks something like 4^sil. This comes out of length being something like 2.3^sil. So enc has to be exponential too, and then it was a question of finding a base (or rather 2 bases, because dedicated freighters didn't fit into the same category as everything else) that adding a small number of cargo bays would explain/get close to most ships.

BTW the ir-3f looks like it has a patrol ship frame and freighter hull and about a little less than 2 dedicated cargo bays, maybe it converted some cargo space to something else but I'm not going to worry about that level of detail) it's only 320 enc off. Maybe a rule that if you have more than 1 dedicated cargo bays no more than 1 hp can be recovered by subtracting off the enc of 1 dedicated cargo bay for a ship 1 silhouette smaller. That would get things a lot closer but... I'm not sure I'm willing to go with that level of complication.

If a yt-1300 equivalent had a freighter frame but not freighter hull then spending 2 hp would get it 180 enc and 1 hp would get it 100, recovering 1 hp from the enc would get it to 180-30=150 enc for 1 hp.

A hwk-1000 would be a freighter frame with a race ship hull with 1 hp spent to give it 100 enc. A hwk-290 would be a freighter hull with elegant design and 2 hp to get it to 20+30+30=80, 1 hp could be recovered to get it to 70 enc.

New idea, revise cargo pods hull 1 advantage crafting upgrade to provide an enc equal to that of a dedicated cargo bay for a vessel 1 silhouette smaller, this upgrade may be taken up to 3 times per hull.

That achieves the desired effect without there being a way to game the system for free enc, and without the unnecessary complication of refunding hp.

On 4/21/2018 at 12:41 AM, EliasWindrider said:

Here's what I have so far

https://www.mediafire.com/file/ybl46t4cq4wmhs4/TheNubianDesignCollectivesWholeVehicleCraftingHandbook.pptx

it's not even close to a first draft (maybe version 0.1), but I wanted to get some early feedback about the direction I'm taking.

I just updated this link with engines, and a minor bit of reformatting.

On 4/21/2018 at 12:41 AM, EliasWindrider said:

Here's what I have so far

https://www.mediafire.com/file/ybl46t4cq4wmhs4/TheNubianDesignCollectivesWholeVehicleCraftingHandbook.pptx

it's not even close to a first draft (maybe version 0.1), but I wanted to get some early feedback about the direction I'm taking.

I updated the link again, the two tables for hulls are now in the PDF but the hull descriptions are not there yet, also added the Engineering Access attachment that was previously only available on the loronar E9 explorer (found in enter the unknown page 61). Thinking about weapons crafting rules, that sets difficulty for weapons, the base price is the buy it price, but you can spend 2 advantage from the check for efficient construction (costs half as much, can only be selected once per weapon), for 1 advantage you can get lessons learned (boost die on your next check with the same skill made before the end of the session), you can also spend 1 triumph to miniaturize a weapon which allows it to be placed on a ship one smaller than normally allowed (can only be selected once per weapon), 3 advantage or 1 triumph,for "linked" (can be taken up to 3 times), and a turret for 2 advantage , and you can also spend 2 advantage or 1 triumph to perform any weapon specific modification normally allowed as part of the construction,

On 27/04/2018 at 1:57 AM, EliasWindrider said:

I updated the link again, the two tables for hulls are now in the PDF but the hull descriptions are not there yet, also added the Engineering Access attachment that was previously only available on the loronar E9 explorer (found in enter the unknown page 61). Thinking about weapons crafting rules, that sets difficulty for weapons, the base price is the buy it price, but you can spend 2 advantage from the check for efficient construction (costs half as much, can only be selected once per weapon), for 1 advantage you can get lessons learned (boost die on your next check with the same skill made before the end of the session), you can also spend 1 triumph to miniaturize a weapon which allows it to be placed on a ship one smaller than normally allowed (can only be selected once per weapon), 3 advantage or 1 triumph,for "linked" (can be taken up to 3 times), and a turret for 2 advantage , and you can also spend 2 advantage or 1 triumph to perform any weapon specific modification normally allowed as part of the construction,

All of the weapon crafting sounds good, although I would think there are more than a few instances of weapons being present on ships 2 sil or more smaller than "allowed". So having it only selectable once may not be the best option.

As to the accessible systems mod... I don't see why it couldn't be applied to almost any sil. All it really has to be is quick release panels or nicely organized cableing and systems.