1 hour ago, TheTubaTanker said:

I think the check for the frame and hull is too easy. A shuttle frame is only hard but you can get the weapons banks by increasing your scope. You should make the hull daunting if you intend to keep the same silhouette requirements. I want to hand this to players who want to play an engineer but I don't want someone who is 1 hour and 45 min into my campaign, building a "ship of the line" (used in broad meaning) because it was easy enough for them to try. If you don't want to raise silhouette requirements or frame requirements then I would make it more difficult. I can just see a player going "we need a shuttle" followed by a "I can do what?", I'd like for there to be a more obvious reason why that isn't the case.

With a starting character I was able to design and build a shuttle with sil 5 speed 3 HT40 SS40 defense 6/3/3/3 and 6 armor handling -1 (this was with 2 black for testing reasons). I have a hyper drive, advanced sensors, a med bay, engineering access, escape pods, life supports systems, and highly automated. The other 10 HP went to weapons banks. My ship has 25 weapons (a lot more than dp20 lancer or CR90). because I'm size 5 I get light turbo lasers made available. When the checks were rolled 5 times the only one I failed more than once was the assembly which was daunting. Now would a character have the credits to pay for this? Probably not. We should make the difficulty dissuade the players from doing this as soon as they see the article. I like that larger scope is easy to get but before vsl was added it was kinda a bad thing mechanically. It made you easier to hit and harder for you to hit enemies. Now it gives you more HT and gives you access to the bigger hulls with strong mods. I recommend that the "larger scope" also upgrade the difficulty of further checks on the project to reflect the frame being pushed to its limits. It mixes red into the system so that we use the other half of the table and that's scary to builders. Additionally, we might consider making the "ship of the line" hull difficulty daunting. Does a team of engineers with ~100 xp care? No. Does a shipwright with ~100-200 xp care? No. Does a character that is not an engineer or very early engineers care? Heck yes they do. If my rolls were hard, normal with a red, daunting with a red and daunting with a red my starting characters would never try this. Also when a hight xp character goes to build home one or their own ISD you want it to be impressive. You want other non engineer character to sit with their jaws on the table as the engineer downgrades difficulties adds his 5 blue upgrades his checks and pools this massive dice pool. IF there are hard and easy checks its kinda a forgone conclusion when the 300xp engineer starts the project and that's no fun.

I was actually planning on making the ship of the line hull daunting, I changed it to hard because of space constraints on the table, but a bit of reformatting should fix that. Now I'm thinking of increasing the difficulty of every hull bu one since they provide bigger benefits than in fully operational

I was thinking of increasing larger scope to 2 advantage.

26 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I was actually planning on making the ship of the line hull daunting, I changed it to hard because of space constraints on the table, but a bit of reformatting should fix that. Now I'm thinking of increasing the difficulty of every hull bu one since they provide bigger benefits than in fully operational

I was thinking of increasing larger scope to 2 advantage.

It wouldn't be bad if the larger scope was two advantage but I think either increasing or upgrading the difficulty of subsequent checks (I like upgrade personally) would really make player talk about their goals for the ship. If there is a new level of risk involved they have to ask themselves is it worth it and I think that gets people more involved in the process and builds up excitement for the ship. I also see there is an argument to be made that it shouldn't be the case this is just a personal opinion at this point. I like seeing one red die because it reminds me that failure is an option.

48 minutes ago, TheTubaTanker said:

It wouldn't be bad if the larger scope was two advantage but I think either increasing or upgrading the difficulty of subsequent checks (I like upgrade personally) would really make player talk about their goals for the ship. If there is a new level of risk involved they have to ask themselves is it worth it and I think that gets people more involved in the process and builds up excitement for the ship. I also see there is an argument to be made that it shouldn't be the case this is just a personal opinion at this point. I like seeing one red die because it reminds me that failure is an option.

I don't think that basic ship building should have potential for disaster in star wars under normal circumstances.

Also, I think the numbers you're using for available hp are a little too high.

20 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I don't think that basic ship building should have potential for disaster in star wars under normal circumstances.

Also, I think the numbers you're using for available hp are a little too high.

I used the stock number of HP out of the book. They aren't disasters there are specific things it can be spent on. Sure they could be really bad but most of them I could see a GM allowing them to fix after they find out there is a problem. The last three charts that would receive a red die don't outright kill the players just add I serious problem later. The thing is that pushing the scope of the build should be easy to do in that you only need one or two advantage but there needs to be some risk for doing so. Most of the time a despair wont roll and all of the despair results require at least a single despair to roll later for them to come up. Two of them are 2 despair to be an issue. I have not had a single roll in either the book system or the article that results in something bad. I had to use the shipwrights talents to make something bad happen. it just seems too easy and this seems like a way to make people think.

5 minutes ago, TheTubaTanker said:

I used the stock number of HP out of the book. They aren't disasters there are specific things it can be spent on. Sure they could be really bad but most of them I could see a GM allowing them to fix after they find out there is a problem. The last three charts that would receive a red die don't outright kill the players just add I serious problem later. The thing is that pushing the scope of the build should be easy to do in that you only need one or two advantage but there needs to be some risk for doing so. Most of the time a despair wont roll and all of the despair results require at least a single despair to roll later for them to come up. Two of them are 2 despair to be an issue. I have not had a single roll in either the book system or the article that results in something bad. I had to use the shipwrights talents to make something bad happen. it just seems too easy and this seems like a way to make people think.

I'm not going to mandate the red die for this, if another gm wants one, they're entitled to add one because of "circumstances", or just spending a destiny point. If it's too easy then what I need to do is increase the difficulty, not upgrade it. I haven't calibrated the HP's yet, and could you confirm whether or not you're actually rolling for the modifications to engine/hull hyperdrive or just assuming success on the mods. Because that's supposed to be a large part of what makes this not a cakewalk.

5 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'm not going to mandate the red die for this, if another gm wants one, they're entitled to add one because of "circumstances", or just spending a destiny point. If it's too easy then what I need to do is increase the difficulty, not upgrade it. I haven't calibrated the HP's yet, and could you confirm whether or not you're actually rolling for the modifications to engine/hull hyperdrive or just assuming success on the mods. Because that's supposed to be a large part of what makes this not a cakewalk.

I do assume I get the mods although I don't pick them all up. I make the assumption because they are average or easy within 40 xp of playing a shipwright. Most of the time we are looking at 2 yellow 2 green 2-4 blue with an automatic success and 2 advantage and I did two black (for added difficulty) and 2 purple. The shipwright can then move extra success but that is unimportant for mods. The home one build with 5 yellow and 5 blue was rolled out completely and it didn't matter. Ever. like it wasn't even close on any occasion. The mods are only not a cakewalk if you don't have a mechanics skill or a friend to give you a hand (or tool and materials) but they very quickly do become a cakewalk for people who build for it. I've seen the dice turn on people but in this case it is very improbable that someone will fail, I know because I've tried. I've run some checks with three black for the heck of it and even didn't use the ability to lower difficulties just because it didn't matter. I've also built a cruiser with engines that that it didn't need because it couldn't go that fast, just to raise difficulty. I don't want to make this too hard to do. A party with someone with some mechanics skill or talents should have no problem building a sil 4 freighter so the story can progress. If it is a war story sure you can try to alter a "shuttle" into a warship, by all means you can try but the styles of ship in the silhouette 4 bracket aren't war ships meant to get shot up or carry tons of weapons. At best they are gunships, troop carriers, freighters and personal spacecraft. Clicking on the corner of their image and dragging it out shouldn't suddenly turn it into a warship. I understand that there are some builds that can be produced this way and not others, so I'm not saying change the Silhouette or class requirement but add a new level of failure. I'm afraid if you raise the difficulty of the check you turn people away from building a simple ship that allows them to get from point a-b and also lets them say "hey I built this, its mine." I don't want it to be difficult to build a shuttle for those purposes. I just don't want someone to build something like what I built or worse. Those numbers I used by the way, are the 10 base from the book and the ten from mods with two more with advantage spent.

19 minutes ago, TheTubaTanker said:

I do assume I get the mods although I don't pick them all up. I make the assumption because they are average or easy within 40 xp of playing a shipwright. Most of the time we are looking at 2 yellow 2 green 2-4 blue with an automatic success and 2 advantage and I did two black (for added difficulty) and 2 purple. The shipwright can then move extra success but that is unimportant for mods. The home one build with 5 yellow and 5 blue was rolled out completely and it didn't matter. Ever. like it wasn't even close on any occasion. The mods are only not a cakewalk if you don't have a mechanics skill or a friend to give you a hand (or tool and materials) but they very quickly do become a cakewalk for people who build for it. I've seen the dice turn on people but in this case it is very improbable that someone will fail, I know because I've tried. I've run some checks with three black for the heck of it and even didn't use the ability to lower difficulties just because it didn't matter. I've also built a cruiser with engines that that it didn't need because it couldn't go that fast, just to raise difficulty. I don't want to make this too hard to do. A party with someone with some mechanics skill or talents should have no problem building a sil 4 freighter so the story can progress. If it is a war story sure you can try to alter a "shuttle" into a warship, by all means you can try but the styles of ship in the silhouette 4 bracket aren't war ships meant to get shot up or carry tons of weapons. At best they are gunships, troop carriers, freighters and personal spacecraft. Clicking on the corner of their image and dragging it out shouldn't suddenly turn it into a warship. I understand that there are some builds that can be produced this way and not others, so I'm not saying change the Silhouette or class requirement but add a new level of failure. I'm afraid if you raise the difficulty of the check you turn people away from building a simple ship that allows them to get from point a-b and also lets them say "hey I built this, its mine." I don't want it to be difficult to build a shuttle for those purposes. I just don't want someone to build something like what I built or worse. Those numbers I used by the way, are the 10 base from the book and the ten from mods with two more with advantage spent.

Please point out what I'm missing, by RAW the base difficulty for the first mod is hard (3 purple) and each mod after that is one harder, so after you've done 3 mod's you need to start flipping destiny points just to attempt the impossible/formidable check for each additional mod. I did not see any talent in the shipwright spec to reduce that but maybe I'm missing it somehow. I had considered making the base difficulty of modding engines and hulls the same as crafting them (so that schematic would reduce it) but I decided against it and don't think I actually put it in the pptx file.

Edit there is master artisan but that would reduce it by one but you need to spend 85 xp on talents to get it.

My bad, this is correct. This difficulty change would have altered a few thing but not significantly prior to the addition of the ship of the line. The two quick builds would have had slightly different stats as we would have run out of destiny points at some point in the build (assuming we were even succeeding) but with things as they stand you could still get insane numbers of weapons banks on a sil 5 ship. I think I'm looking at a potential of 8 (still disregard some of the stats as they would be slightly different) weapons banks if you stripped the ship down further. This would involve dropping to a single ion engine ditching the med bays and life support. this would be extreme but I think its what we are trying to avoid.

20 minutes ago, TheTubaTanker said:

My bad, this is correct. This difficulty change would have altered a few thing but not significantly prior to the addition of the ship of the line. The two quick builds would have had slightly different stats as we would have run out of destiny points at some point in the build (assuming we were even succeeding) but with things as they stand you could still get insane numbers of weapons banks on a sil 5 ship. I think I'm looking at a potential of 8 (still disregard some of the stats as they would be slightly different) weapons banks if you stripped the ship down further. This would involve dropping to a single ion engine ditching the med bays and life support. this would be extreme but I think its what we are trying to avoid.

The intent is to calibrate the number of hp so things DON'T get out of hand, the gunship and ship of the line hulls are now daunting (4 purple), the others are unchanged, if needed by the calibration of hp, the ship of the line hull can be the only hull that costs hp, and I'm thinking of a rule that no more than 2/3 of your crew round up can be gunners (pilots are able to use pilot only weapons and do not count as gunners). BTW unless you have the scout ship hull and are using at least one of the consumables mods, you NEED life support systems because otherwise you don't have air in space.

did you also miss that a weapons bank costs 2 hp except on a heavy cruiser, destroyer or space station frame?

BTW what do you think of having the BASE difficulty of modding core components (frame, engine, hull) equal the difficulty to craft the core component (so that schematic would lessen the difficulty to mod the core components? I've gone back and forth with myself on this many times, and getting someone else's perspective. (I don't believe that their are any mods for frames at this point). That would make the schematic upgrade extra valuable.

Well I would say go for it. The gunship and the ship of the line have several "must have" mods to make their ships work. anything to make those easier would probably be okay because there are about 4 or 5 mods I think you NEED when building a heavy cruiser or destroyer. Even if you got it 2 easier there would still be formidable and daunting check at some point.

@EliasWindrider ... So 2 things... Any chance we can get all the vehicle attachments in this as in all in one place? And the other is to make the aggressor we will need the safety limiters

9 hours ago, jayc007 said:

@EliasWindrider ... So 2 things... Any chance we can get all the vehicle attachments in this as in all in one place? And the other is to make the aggressor we will need the safety limiters

I'm a bit concerned that putting full descriptions (including benefits) of all the attachments in this will trigger a "cease and desist" from ffg, but one or more tables containing name, number of modification options, source(s) including page number, price/rarity, and hard point cost should be doable. But maybe I could put the fluff text descriptions, hp cost, price/rarity, NUMBER of modification options, and a citation to the sources for base modifications, and modifications options. A few attachments like the legs could have a full descriptions.

The safety limiters would be a useless attachment that match the fluff of the aggressor but not one has a game mechanical reason to hobble a starship like that unless... it was a flaw that the GM could spend threat on to install... I could definitely add it to the engine table.

I updated it again, fixed/added a few table options, the bit about schematic also reducing the difficulty to modify core components, added modification options to weapons banks (2x turret wanna be mod)

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

13 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'm a bit concerned that putting full descriptions (including benefits) of all the attachments in this will trigger a "cease and desist" from ffg, but one or more tables containing name, number of modification options, source(s) including page number, price/rarity, and hard point cost should be doable. But maybe I could put the fluff text descriptions, hp cost, price/rarity, NUMBER of modification options, and a citation to the sources for base modifications, and modifications options. A few attachments like the legs could have a full descriptions.

The safety limiters would be a useless attachment that match the fluff of the aggressor but not one has a game mechanical reason to hobble a starship like that unless... it was a flaw that the GM could spend threat on to install... I could definitely add it to the engine table.

We obviously don't want a cnd letter... As far as fluff text goes I would at most paraphrase it. Maybe put in the number of mods and the base characteristic, the hp and cost.

As to the aggessor... anything built to be comparable would have to either have -1 or +3 handling. If it was an attachment it could have mods to reduce or eliminate the strain

12 minutes ago, jayc007 said:

We obviously don't want a cnd letter... As far as fluff text goes I would at most paraphrase it. Maybe put in the number of mods and the base characteristic, the hp and cost.

As to the aggessor... anything built to be comparable would have to either have -1 or +3 handling. If it was an attachment it could have mods to reduce or eliminate the strain

check the engine table under despair in the most recent update (as in a few minutes before you posted).

8 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

check the engine table under despair in the most recent update (as in a few minutes before you posted).

Yup. Saw it.just starting to think through an interceptor 4

On 5/6/2018 at 7:12 AM, jayc007 said:

Yup. Saw it.just starting to think through an interceptor 4

Interceptor iv is a tough one, wer're not going to get an exact match but I would say patrol ship with integrated improvements to double the crew, so 16 crew and 10 passengers, using passenger space for 4 or 5 officers, so off by 1 in terms of how many people it carries and it gets the hull trauma threshold right.

Freighter hull, it needs at least 9 cargo bays and 3 cargo pods... so 10,010 enc (instead of an even 10K) at a cost of 18 hp, modded to increase armor by 1.

3 hp for Fusial thrust engine gets speed 3, and 20 strain, shields 1 at in the front... with rules the way they are I could get 2/2/2/2 shields (modding the hull for 2 +1 defense in 1 arc, nodding fusial trust engine for +2 defense in rear arc, reinforced shield generator for 2 hp fully modded to get 3 increase defense by one in one arc) and then with 1 engine crafting upgrade of enhanced power to deflectors we get to the listed 3/2/2/2.

But really, to avoid the need to use of the reinforced shield generator there ought to be a (construction time only, or fewer, i.e. 2 instead of 3 hp if installed at time of construction) military grade shields (2 or) 3 hp attachment, that increases defense in all arcs by 1, with 1 mod to do the same. I'll add that. So we're talking 23 hp used so far

1 hp for Life support modded 3 times gets 100 days instead of 90.

1 hp each for hyperdrive and sensors, both modded. That brings us to 26 hp so far so it will have needed the extra hard point and integrated systems upgrade from crafting the hull, and the extra hard point from crafting the frame to bring it back down to 23 hp.

BTW integrated systems should probably be able to handle a 2 hp attachment, I'll make that change, and it puts us at 22 hp (military grade shields was the integrated system), 3 hp for weapons, 4 hp for leftover hard points, so the patrol ship frame would need a minimum of 29 hp to pull this off.

The freighter frame could do it with 9 less hp, but the crew and passengers would each be 8.

The easiest fix would be that the freighter frame can receive the integrated improvements upgrade 1 additional time, getting it to 16 crew 8 passengers, which makes it one short (but it does have 10 extra enc), and that actually seems pretty reasonable, but it makes the shuttle frame almost pointless unless it gets another benefit, hmm... what should that be????

So if the freighter had 15 + silhouette hp, or 10 + 2x silhouette hp, or 5 +3x silhouette hp, this would work and it seems pretty reasonable.

That I'm having to jump through all these hoops, shows just how poorly/sub-optimally the interceptor iv were designed... they are really just bulk freighters that are masquerading as warships (the official stats are pretty sucky for warships, but that 10K enc makes it a great frieghter)

Edit: DUH the shuttle' extra benefit over the freighter should be a few extra hard points!!!

here is the updated link

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

15 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Interceptor iv is a tough one,

Thanks... just started a new job so been a little busy and haven't had a chance to do much else.

4 hours ago, jayc007 said:

Thanks... just started a new job so been a little busy and haven't had a chance to do much else.

I had my 3 year wedding anniversary on Wednesday, that and work, and our son Samuel (~9.5 months old now) have been keeping. I was able to do the interceptor iv last night after my son went to bed (while my wife was working the night shift as a charge nurse). This morning I was over in the apartment clubhouse while my wife was sleeping, my son took an hour long nap so I was working on the xwing... man with the current rules it is tough to build a star fighter that doesn't completely outclass an xwing while also not having it be completely outclassed by a elegant designed freighter or shuttle.

What came out of this is I need a 1 hp navicomputer attachment (which will be zero hp for a sil >= 4 or 5 [undecided which] ship), fighters no longer get the astromech droid socket for free with every purchase of a hyperdrive,

scoutship hull can't provide 2 free hp, has to have maneuverability reduced to +1, may get mods to increase armor and maneuverability by one.

Freighter frame hp has to depend on vsl, rather than being a linear function of silhouette.

Also for interceptors, the race ship hull is going to have to reduce hull trauma threshold and maybe system strain threshold too. But it probably ought to have another benefit to balance it out, maybe it's just really cheap in terms of credits or it provides hp, or something

as of this update (which also updated all previous links in this thread)

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

I've twiddled with hp (available for star fighters, freighters, shuttles, corvettes, and the hp costs of some attachments, e.g. star fighter don't get the astromech droid socket for free when they add a hyperdrive)

with this revision of the rules, you can now make a reasonable approximation of an x wing as a star fighter frame (10 HTT, 10 HP), with fusial thrust engine (3 hp, 3 speed, 12 SST, 2x mods for + speed, 1x mod for rear deflectors, or crafting upgrades take your pick), and scout ship hull modded (or layer plating crafting upgrade) for +1 armor, optionally a cargo pod (you're either at 5 enc without or 15 with the cargo pod), 2 hp for weapons, 1 hp for hyperdrive, 2 hp for astromech droid socket, 1 hp life support, 1 leftover hp, system strain threshold is 2 too high and enc is either 5 too low or 5 too high (depending on absence/presence of the cargo pod), otherwise it's an exact match (with appropriate mods to the hyperdrive)

And a reasonable approximation of a CR90 corellian corvette

corvette frame, gunship hull (3x mods for additional oversized weapons, needed for the 2 **MEDIUM** tubolaser batteries, and an increase defense in all arcs by 1), ion turbine engine (modded for +1 speed and a enhanced output crafting upgrade and an enhanced power to deflectors for the rear arc) , the 600 (well 640 but it's close enough) passengers are covered by 2x application of integrated improvements, the 30 and 165 crew are slightly missed but can do 40 or 160 with a 1x application of integrated improvements. to get enough (i.e. 18) hp for the 9 cargo bays (to bring you to 2460 enc, or 2540 with a cargo pod) you'll need to double your crew to gain silhouette 5 extra hp. you need 3 life support systems each modded 4 times to get 375 days of consumables, 8 hp for weapons (including 2 hp for the turret mounts of the medium turbolaser batteries), 1 hp hyperdrive, 1 hp sensors , 4 leftover hp (if you doubled the crew to get + 5 hp and went for the 2460 or 2540 enc)

changes to the raceship hull were made to better represent interceptors (e.g. a wing, tie interceptor, and tie LN fighter, the tie LN won't take advantage of the option to increase speed to 6 though), but they still probably won't match quite as good as the x wing.

on the to do list is revisit the hwk series freighters to check the available hp, etc

also need to take a look at vigil class and marauder corvettes, and revisit ir-3f to make sure have sufficient hp

minor update (needed a reinforced frame attachment and made some minor tweaks to other stuff)

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

It was hard to build something as awful (read as "lousy" not "awesome") as a marauder corvette (which explains why the Republic navy rejected them in universe)

keep in mind what follows immediately is an intentionally bad design (I tried to match leftover hp, there is a much more hp efficient way to achieve the much the same thing which I'll mention later)

corvette frame, frame sil 5, 50 htt, 255 enc, 80 crew integrated improvements => 160, 160 passengers integrated improvements => 80, 3x (new) reinforced frame attachment (available at time of construction only, each costs 2 hp and adds silhouette hull trauma threshold) => 6 hp & +15 htt

ion turbine engines (3 hp) => speed 1, 25 SST, 1/0/0/0 defense, 2x modded to increase SST by silhouette => 35 SST, some combination of the following resulting in +2 speed, modded for speed and enhanced output crafting upgrade

carrier hull, 1 armor, modded for +1 armor, modded for +1 defense in all arcs 3x layered plating crafting upgrades, 2x maneuvering fins, spend 2 hp total for 2 dedicated hanger bays

spend 15 hp on weapons (including 4 hp for turrets for 4 out of 8 of the double light turbolasers)

1 hp life support x3 modded for 100 days of consumables

1 hp hyperdrive (modded)

0 hp navicomputer

1 hp sensors (modded)

6+3+2+15+1+1+1=29 hp => 4 leftover hp. so final stats are

sil 5, speed 3, handling 0, defense 2/1/1/1, armor 5,

htt 65, sst 35

hyperdrive x2

navicomputer

sensors Medium

ships complement: 160 (instead of marauder's 177)

can carry 50 total silhouette of smaller craft including 2 that are one smaller than it, so 14 fighters and 2 shuttles instead of marauder's 12 fighters and 2 shuttles

encumbrance capacity 215 (instead of marauder's 175)

passenger capacity: 80

consumables: 100 days (stead of marauder's 90 days)

customization hard points: 4 (instead of marauder's 1)

a better way to have achieved something similar would have been to put a "ship of the line hull" on a corvette => weapons batteries cost 2 hp each therefore spending 2x2+1=5 hp for weapons (instead of 15), mod the weapons batteries to add 2 fire arcs, that way 4 double light turbolasers+1 light tractor beam get forward/port/aft fire arcs 4 double light turbolasers +1 light tractor get forward/starboard/aft fire arcs, and 1 light tractor beam not in a weapons battery (so same as no but more all instead of half of them can fire to the aft, and get better coverage on tractor beams too, for 1 3rd the hp), the ship of the line hull gets 5 armor from the get go so no need to mod it, but still need the the 2x maneuvering fins (but less advantage needed). It would have needed to spend 6 instead of 2 hp on the 2 dedicated hanger bays and so it would have 10+2-6 = 6 extra hard points available, but you could spend that on cargo to get an extra 245x3=735 enc or 735+215=950 enc total (compared to the marauder's measly 175 enc), while still having 4 hp left over (compared to the marauder's 1 leftover hp). they could have modded the life support systems 1 more time to get 125 days out of it, and then installed 2 more 4x modded life support systems to have 375 days of consumables (so over a year) and still have had 2 hp left over (instead of the marauder's 1), and instead of using an integrated improvements frame crafting upgrade to double the crew from 80 to 160 they could have modded the hull to double the crew and gotten an extra 5 hp in the bank (so 7 unspent hp), and it would have had over all easier mechanics checks (not needed as many mods/crafting upgrades to the frame/hull). they could have modded the ship of the line hull to increase the htt by silhouette once and saved another 2 hp, but really, why bother when you already have 7 unspent AND it's another check you have to make.

now, you could call that a failure of my vehicle crafting house rules (that the pretty potent marauder class corvette is actually pretty lousy compared to what they could have built), but...

...because the republic navy rejected the marauder class corvette in universe I'm going to instead claim that the republic navy personnel in charge of the procurement effort were "playing by" a set of vehicle crafting rules that are at least very similar to mine and being fairly compettent realized that the marauder, while still "capable" was a VERY sub-optimal design (basically a very smart but newb shipwright's senior design project level of competency) and that's WHY they rejected it .

let's revisit the hwk series now that we have hp formula for starfighters, freighters, and shuttles

I tweaked the freighter frame (now has the same htt as the shuttle) and added the auxilliary generator, and tweaked the race ship hull

hwk-290

freighter with elegant design, sil 3, 20 htt, 1 crew, 2 passengers, enc 20, 12 hp

4 hp electron baffled engine with one +2 to speed mod, and angle the deflectors so the 0/2 defense becomes a 1/1 defense, and 2 x increase system strain threshold by silhouette mod => speed 4, 1/1 defense and 18 system strain

scout ship hull, 2 armor, +1 handling, mod to double the crew and gain 3 hp,

2 dedicated cargo bays => +60 enc => 80 enc => spend 2 hp

1 life support system 2x modded => 30 days => spend 1 hp

1 hp hyperdrive modded

1 hp navicomputer

sensors 1 hp

hp spent = 4+2+1+1+1= 10 and 12+3-10=5 left over.

so apart from the hull trauma threshold being 2 pts too good and encumbrance being 5 too high (I haven't checked the credit cost), although it was slightly suboptimally built, but it requires very few mods and only 1 crafting upgrade so any advantage could be dumped into lessons learned to make crafting this thing more reliable, less random/costly to CEC.

**************************************************************************

hwk-1000

freighter frame => 25 hull trauma threshold, 17 hp, 2 crew, 4 passengers

3 hp, fusial thrust engine, mod for +1 aft shields, 1 mod to increase speed by 1 or the enhanced output engine crafting upgrade => sst=16, speed=4, 1/1 defense,

race ship hull: ("costs" 1 hp), +1 speed (and allowed speed), handling=+1, -4 hull trauma threshold => 21, -4 system strain=> 12, armor 1, 2 increases to armor from layered plating

1 (2 hp) auxiliary generator (new attachment) => SST = 16

1 dedicated cargo bay: 1 hp, +80 enc => 100 enc.

2x life support systems modded 3 times => 200 days, costs 2 hp

1 hyperdrive (modded) 1 hp

1 navicomputer, 1 hp

1 hp for sensors

3+1+2+1+2+1+1+`1= 12 hp => 5 left over hp

so final stats are

sil 4, speed 5, handling +1, defense 1/1, armor 3

htt 21 (vs hwk-1000's 18), sst 16 (vs hwk-1000's 15)

hyper drive x1 (and backup)

navicomputer

short sensor range

ship's complement: 2

encumbrance capacity 100

passenger capacity: 4

consumables 200 days (instead of hwk-1000's 185-190, because of 1 or 2 fette weeks in half the year)

hard points 5.

again this was built sub optimally to match the hwk-1000... it would have had slightly better stats (2 extra hp, an extra 1 to 6 passengers) with a shuttle frame.

I know that the Astromech socket aftermarket attachment is 2 hp, but using that during starfighter construction doesn't make sense to me if the Navicomputer is only 1 hp.

Perhaps the Navicomputer should be 2 hp, and give the Astromech socket a 2 hp cost for normal ships, but a 1 hp cost for starfighters.

You can tweak the available hp to reflect this.

Just a suggestion!

BTW: Thank you for all the effort that you've been putting into this project!

Are you planning on adding a Sil 4 Heavy Fighter frame?

There are a few Sil 4 starfighters (a heavy bomber and a heavy fighter).

If you do, keep in mind that people like me would attempt to apply Elegant Design to make a tougher Sil 3 fighter. ?