13 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

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!

You're welcome.

I was thinking a navicomputer would be smaller than an astromech because the awing had a navicomputer. The reason why i made the droid socket and navicomputer cost any hp was because otherwise the xwing had too many hp by the formula (after getting a zero hp hull), note that the starfighter hp formula is still in flux, and I could make a "basic navicomputer" with no upgrades for 1 hp and navicomputer with upgrades for 2 hp.

Balancing hp across 3 silhouettes for each frame isn't a walk in the park

45 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

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. ?

No I wasn't, I would think that a heavy starfighter would still be sil 3, and a hwk-290 is ship makes a great heavy starfighter and you can get it by applying elegant design to a freighter, another option is to put a gunship hull on a star fighter, by the base starfighter is kind of beefy already, and the I had to really trim back and tweak the capabilities of the race ship hull in an attempt to provide a semi-realistic interceptor, which was a challenge to make it still be desirable.

Sounds good!

Those two Sil 4 fighters only represent a small percentage of the starfighters, so sticking to Sil 3 is probably fine.

(I think there is an option to increase frame size, anyway.)

4 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

Sounds good!

Those two Sil 4 fighters only represent a small percentage of the starfighters, so sticking to Sil 3 is probably fine.

(I think there is an option to increase frame size, anyway.)

It's called "larger scope"

Edit: btw the "aggressor assault fighter" is technically a "patrol boat" which, offhand (as in I haven't tried yet) I would stat as a patrol ship with elegant design to get it to speed 5.

Vigil Class corvette

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

htt 55, sst 35

hyperdrive x2, backup 10, navicomputer

long sensors

crew 200,

encumbrance 1800

passengers 200

consumables 1 year

7 weapons, 6 turrets

0 hp

Corvette Frame: sil 5, 50 HTT, 33 hp, 80 crew, 160 passengers, 215 enc, integrated improvements to double crew => 160 and passengers => 320 but 40 of passenger space converted to crew space (officers quarters) => 200 crew and 280 passengers.

1x Reinforced frame attachment => +5 htt => 55 htt, 2 hp

ion turbine engine (3 hp): => 25 sst, 1 speed, 2x enhanced output crafting upgrade, 2x increase defense in one zone by one mods => 1/1/1/0 defense

2x auxilliary generators, 4 hp, +10 sst => 35 sst

ship of the line hull: 5 armor, -2 handling, maneuvering fins crafting upgrade => -1 handling, 2x cargo pods (+160 enc) => 375 enc, 1 upgrade defense in all arcs mods => 2/2/2/1, massive 1

6x dedicated cargo bays, 12 hp, +1470 enc => 1845 enc

2 weapons banks, with 3x add one adjacent fire arc mods (can mount all weapons with 3 to spare), 4hp

4x life support (3 modded 3 times, 1 modded twice) 4 hp => 375 days of consumables

hyperdrive (modded) 1 hp

navicomputer 1 hp

sensors (modded) 1 hp

2+3+4+12+4+4+1+1+1=32 hp, 33-32=1 left over hp vs zero for the vigil

the resulting ship is slightly better than the vigil in multiple areas. Although the ship of the line hull could have added 5 hp instead of using integrated improvements to double the crew, and thus it's a slightly sup-optimal build, given the number of crafting upgrades and mods used I'm going to call it a 95% match since the mega corps would shy away from them because increased difficulties means increased failures/parts that don't meet quality control standards and thus increased costs for the mega ship building corp.

IR-3f class light frigate (page 267 of force and destiny core) which in my opinion is the best sil 5 ship for modding under the fully operational RAW to be a PC ship (i.e. replace the hull, add a hyperdrive)

sil 5, speed 4, handling -1, defense 2/2/2/2, armor 3

40 htt, 35 sst

no hyperdrive/navicomputer

extreme sensors,

crew 20

enc 1800

passengers 10

consumables 1 month

hard points 2

4 weapons 3 turrets

patrol ship frame: sil 5, 40 htt, 8 crew, 10 passengers, 20 enc, 27 hp, can have a max speed of 4

ion turbine engine, 3 hp: 25 sst, 1 speed, 1/0/0/0, some 3x combination of enhanced power to deflector and or modding to add defense to one arc => 1/1/1/1 defense, some 3x combination of enhanced output or modding the engine to get speed to 4.

2x auxiliary generators, 4 hp, +10 sst => 35 sst

gunship hull, 3 armor, -2 handling, maneuvering fins for +1 handling => -1 handling, 1 x cargo pods => 100 enc total, mod to add 1 defense to all arcs => 2/2/2/2, mod to double crew to 16 and add 5 hard points

7 dedicated cargo bays, for 14 hp, +1715 enc => 1815 enc

1 life support (optionally modded once) => 25 or 50 days of consumables ,1 hp

1 sensors (modded) 1 hp

7 hp for weapons

2 leftover hp

3 + 4 + 14+1+1+7 +2 =32 hp, 27+5=32 (the exact right number of hard points)

Not terrible, but perhaps could have been built more efficiently/optimally if one were willing to take on additional difficulty for crafting upgrades and mods, and gone with a freighter hull and the military grade shield generators attachments instead of the gunship hull.

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

dp20 gunship pages 266-267 of edge of the empire core book

sil 5, speed 4, handling -1, defense 2/2/2/1, armor 5

55 htt, 30 sst

hyperdrive x2/x16 with navicomputer

long sensors

crew 91

enc 30

passengers 0

consumables 8 month

unspent hp 1

18 weapons, 14 on turrets

patrol ship frame: sil 5, 40 htt, 8 crew, 10 passengers, 20 enc, 27 hp, integrated improvements x2 so passengers => 40, and officer quarters => 46 crew and 2 passengers.

3x reinforced frame, 6 hp, => 55 htt

ion turbine engine, 3 hp, 25 sst, 1 speed, 1/0/0/0 shields, 2x modded to add 1 defense to one arc => 1/1/1/0, some 3x combination of enhanced output upgrades and engine mod to get speed to 4

auxiliary generator, 2 hp, => 30 sst

ship of the line hull: armor 5, handling -2, maneuvering fins => handling -1, modded to add 5 hp and double crew to 92, 1 cargo pod => 100 enc total

1 dedicated cargo bay, 2 hp, => 345 enc total

military grade shield generators (unmodded) => 2/2/2/1 shields for 2 hp

sensors modded 1 hp

hyperdrive modded 1 hp

navicomputer 1 hp

3 life support systems (one modded 3 times, 2 modded twice) => 250 days of consumables, 3 hp

4 weapons banks modded, 8 hp

3 available hard points (compared to dp20's 1)

6+3+2+2+2+1+1+1+3+8+3=32 hp spent

27+5=32 hp available

so a pretty decent match, being a ship of the line they might have wanted to have 5 life support systems each modded once to increase redundency

revisiting: Interceptor IV (page 81 of Mask Of The Pirate Queen)

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

HTT 40, SST 20

Hyperdrive x3, Backup x20, Navicomputer

Medium Sensors

crew 20,

Enc 10,000

passengers 5

Consumables 3 months

Hard Points 4

3 weapons no turrets

Freighter frame, larger scope: sil 5, 35 htt, 27 hp, 20 enc, 4 crew, 8 passengers, 2x integrated improvements => 8 crew & 16 passengers, officers quarters => 20 crew and 4 passengers.

Reinforced frame (2 hp): +5 htt => 40 htt

Fusial Thrust Engine (3 hp): speed 3, 20 sst, defense 1/0/0/0

Military grade shield generators modded (2 hp) => defense=3/2/2/2

Freighter Hull: armor 1, handling -2, 1x maneuvering fins => handling =-1, mod hull for +1 armor, 3x cargo pods => enc=785

9 dedicated cargo bays (9 hp) => enc = 10,010

1x life support modded x3 (1 hp) => 100 days consumables

sensors modded (1 hp)

hyperdrive modded (1hp)

navigation computer (1 hp)

weapons (3 hp)

unspent hard points 4

2+3+2+9+1+1+1+1+3+4=27 hp spent

27 available,

built pretty much optimally and it misses spec by having 1 to few passengers and 10 days too many consumables and 10 too many enc (and I don't think the back up hyperdrive rating will match either) , but all in all it's an incredibly close match which says that CEC really knew what it was doing and was on the ball when it designed this thing, but it's basically a bulk freighter, that's been slightly ruggedized and slightly weaponized, which fits in with CEC design expertise. Also if you look at the picture on page 80 of mask of the pirate queen the 4 identically looking cap ships are probably what this thing looks like and it's remarkably similar in appearance to an action VI.

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

Action VI bulk freighter (page 260 EotE core)

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

htt 40, sst 20

hyperdrive x3, backup x20, navicomputer

crew 20

enc 10,000

passengers 5

consumables 3 months

hard points

so build it the same as the interceptor IV but leave off the 3 weapons, and don't mod the military grade shields, and don't add the maneuvering fins, and use 2 life support systems modded x1 each instead of 1 modded x3

we end up with 6 leftover hp instead of 4 official, 1 too few passengers, 10 days too many consumables, 10 too many enc, 1 too fast, and 1 handling too agile (there isn't a engine that can replicate the performance of this ship) and the backup hyperdrive rating isn't going to match. Hmmm, looks like CEC was slacking slightly when they built this thing, or that interceptor IV's that missed spec were repurposed to be freighters, or that CEC had deliberately loose tolerances so that manufacturing mistakes didn't mean scrapping parts which saves them money. or maybe the above is true but the slacking is less severe because the freighter frame should have 2 fewer hp, and the interceptor IV should have used crafting upgrades to add 2 hp

but what would that do to other freighters?????

Edit: the hwk-290 and hawk-1000 could still be built by added 1 hp to the frame and an hp to the hull, so no problems yet... let's look at some YT series freighters next...

YT-1300 (page 264 EotE core)

sil 4, speed 3, handling -1, defense 1/1, armor 3

htt 22, sst 13

hyperdrive x2, backup 12, navicomputer

short sensors

crew 2

enc 165

passengers 6

consumables 2 months

hp 6

weapons 2 hp, and 2hp for turrets

freighter frame: sil 4, 25 htt, (2+VSL=17 hp/VSL=15hp), 20 enc, 2 crew, 4 passengers, integrated improvements x1 or x2 to decrease passengers to 1 or 4

ion turbine engines (3 hp): speed 1, 15 sst, 1/0 defense, mod the engine and/or output to get speed to 3, mod shields or hull or enhanced power to deflectors to get to 1/1 defense

Transport hull, 1 armor, -2 handling, x4 to passenger => (4 or 8 passengers), with 2x cargo pod => 80 enc, and maneuvering fins => handling =-1, 2x hull mods and or layered plating to get to 3 armor

1 dedicated cargo bay (1 hp) => 160 enc

1 life support x3 modded (1 hp) => 60 days of consumables

hyperdrive modded (1 hp)

navicomputer (1 hp)

sensors (1 hp)

4 hp on weapons & turrets

6 unspent hp

3+1+1+1+1+1+4+6=18 hp, which is 1 two few for the old way of computing hp, but we can add up to 2 during crafting so a freighter could have as few as 1+VSL hp

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

YT-2400 (page 265 EotE core)

sil 4, speed 3, handling 0, 1/1 defense, 4 armor

htt 25, sst 18

hyperdrive x2, backup x12, navicomputer

sensors short

crew 2, enc 140

passengers 6

2 months consumables

hp 5

weapons 2 hp + 2 hp for turrets

like the YT-1300 it freighter frame, ion turbine engine (3 hp) {but modded to increase strain threshold by silhouette (so 19 as opposed to official 18)}, transport hull with x1 cargo pod, and an extra layered plating and maneuvering fins, besides having only 5 unspent xp, the rest is the same as a YT1300 so

3+1+1+1+1+1+4+5=17 hp, having to do an extra hull mod (extra maneuvering fins) is probably why the added 1 fewer hp during crafting of the hull, which means the frame could still have had a hp added to it... so maybe freighter hp should be VSL+1...

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

YT-2000 would be built the same as a YT-1300 but with one extra maneuvering fin, which would explain why they didn't mod the hull for an extra hp, OR ditch both cargo pods, add the hard point to the hull and add an extra dedicated cargo bay (which would be 180 enc)... both VSL+1 hp or VSL+2 hp are on the table.

Ok when looking up the YT-2000 stats I flipped past page 58 of fly casual which had the gonzati class armed transport on it and my first impression of the stats (since starting to work on these crafting rules) was "if that thing was built as a freighter hull on a freighter frame then it's a really sucky design because it should have a bunch more hp" but maybe my eyeball math got it wrong (or maybe it was built as a gunship hull on a freighter frame) so let's do the numbers more formerly

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

htt 50, sst 36

hyperdrive x3, backup x12, navicomputer

crew 12

passengers 12

enc 1000

consumables 1 month

sensors long

hp 4

weapons 7 hp

so freighter frame with larger scope, sil 5, 35 htt, 2+VSL=27 hp, 20 enc, 4 crew, 8 passengers 2x integrated improvements => 8 crew & 16 passengers, with officer quarters => 12 crew and 12 passengers,

reinforced frame x3 (6 hp) => 50 HTT

ion turbine engines (3 hp) speed 1, 25 sst, defense 1/0/0/0 mod the engines twice to increase system strain threshold => 35 SST, mod the engines one more for speed

military grade shields (2hp) => defense = 2/1/1/1

freighter hull: 1 armor, -2 handling, mod hull for +1 armor = 2, and 3x layered plating crafting upgrade => armor = 5, 2x mod to add +1 defense to 1 arc (each) => defense = 2/2/2/1

1 dedicated cargo bay => enc=1045

x1 life support (1 hp) maybe modded x1

hyperdrive modded (1 hp)

navicomputer (1 hp)

sensors modded (1 hp)

unspent hp 4

weapons 7 hp

6+3+2+1+1+1+1+1+4+7=27 hp which says my eyeball math was bogus, this is a good design, but I initially thought there was only 5 hp on weapons, and a reinforced construction crafting upgrade on the frame could save another 2 hp (so up to 4 unspent from first impression, but that was bad eyeball math)... so yeah CEC did a real good job designing the Gonzati and the rules I made seem to replicate official ships better than first glance appears.

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

But if the original gonzati was such a good design, can my rules handle a CROC gonzati (page 62-63 of no disintegrations) which is widely considered to be overpowered????

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

HTT 55, SST 40

hyperdrive x3, backup x12, navicomputer

sensors medium

crew 12

passengers 20

consumables 2 months

hard points 6

weapons normally 6 hp, but what would making them retractable cost (unless that would go in weapons crafting rules)????

so only doing delta's away from the regular gonzati

for the frame we'd need the reinforced construction crafting upgrade to add another 5 htt, and the add a hard point crafting upgrade, and apply both integrated improvements to passengers which would make crew 4 and passengers 32 before officers quarters makes it 12 and 24

the engine would require the "enhanced output" crafting upgrade and either enhanced power to deflectors or being modded to increase the shields in the forward arc by one, it would also have to be modded the third and final time to increase SST by another 5 to 40 SST

The hull would require 3x of the cargo pods crafting upgrade => enc =1045+3*255=1810

mod the life support x2 instead of x1,

drop the torpedo launchers and there we have it, except it has 4 too many passengers and there are to my knowledge no way of explaining why the weapons are retractable (they can be, but why/how they are is not explained/costed)

Also the CROC gonzati would be hard as h&ll to craft, but my rules do actually allow for it to happen

BTW for the CROC gonzati it's ALMOST ESSENTIAL for freighters to VSL+2hp, it'd be possible (but even harder) to do it in VLS+1 hp by adding the +1 hard point crafting upgrade to the hull.

On 5/25/2018 at 1:56 AM, EliasWindrider said:

Ok when looking up the YT-2000 stats I flipped past page 58 of fly casual which had the gonzati class armed transport on it and my first impression of the stats (since starting to work on these crafting rules) was "if that thing was built as a freighter hull on a freighter frame then it's a really sucky design because it should have a bunch more hp" but maybe my eyeball math got it wrong (or maybe it was built as a gunship hull on a freighter frame) so let's do the numbers more formerly

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

htt 50, sst 36

hyperdrive x3, backup x12, navicomputer

crew 12

passengers 12

enc 1000

consumables 1 month

sensors long

hp 4

weapons 7 hp

so freighter frame with larger scope, sil 5, 35 htt, 2+VSL=27 hp, 20 enc, 4 crew, 8 passengers 2x integrated improvements => 8 crew & 16 passengers, with officer quarters => 12 crew and 12 passengers,

reinforced frame x3 (6 hp) => 50 HTT

ion turbine engines (3 hp) speed 1, 25 sst, defense 1/0/0/0 mod the engines twice to increase system strain threshold => 35 SST, mod the engines one more for speed

military grade shields (2hp) => defense = 2/1/1/1

freighter hull: 1 armor, -2 handling, mod hull for +1 armor = 2, and 3x layered plating crafting upgrade => armor = 5, 2x mod to add +1 defense to 1 arc (each) => defense = 2/2/2/1

1 dedicated cargo bay => enc=1045

x1 life support (1 hp) maybe modded x1

hyperdrive modded (1 hp)

navicomputer (1 hp)

sensors modded (1 hp)

unspent hp 4

weapons 7 hp

6+3+2+1+1+1+1+1+4+7=27 hp which says my eyeball math was bogus, this is a good design, but I initially thought there was only 5 hp on weapons, and a reinforced construction crafting upgrade on the frame could save another 2 hp (so up to 4 unspent from first impression, but that was bad eyeball math)... so yeah CEC did a real good job designing the Gonzati and the rules I made seem to replicate official ships better than first glance appears.

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

But if the original gonzati was such a good design, can my rules handle a CROC gonzati (page 62-63 of no disintegrations) which is widely considered to be overpowered????

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

HTT 55, SST 40

hyperdrive x3, backup x12, navicomputer

sensors medium

crew 12

passengers 20

consumables 2 months

hard points 6

weapons normally 6 hp, but what would making them retractable cost (unless that would go in weapons crafting rules)????

so only doing delta's away from the regular gonzati

for the frame we'd need the reinforced construction crafting upgrade to add another 5 htt, and the add a hard point crafting upgrade, and apply both integrated improvements to passengers which would make crew 4 and passengers 32 before officers quarters makes it 12 and 24

the engine would require the "enhanced output" crafting upgrade and either enhanced power to deflectors or being modded to increase the shields in the forward arc by one, it would also have to be modded the third and final time to increase SST by another 5 to 40 SST

The hull would require 3x of the cargo pods crafting upgrade => enc =1045+3*255=1810

mod the life support x2 instead of x1,

drop the torpedo launchers and there we have it, except it has 4 too many passengers and there are to my knowledge no way of explaining why the weapons are retractable (they can be, but why/how they are is not explained/costed)

Also the CROC gonzati would be hard as h&ll to craft, but my rules do actually allow for it to happen

BTW for the CROC gonzati it's ALMOST ESSENTIAL for freighters to VSL+2hp, it'd be possible (but even harder) to do it in VLS+1 hp by adding the +1 hard point crafting upgrade to the hull.

But what types of costs in regards to ad/tri are we looking at for those builds. I' agree some should be quite hard to replicate for the average back yard astromech&mechanic, but still not entirely impossible

@EliasWindrider btw, thanks for all the hard work. I'm sorry I wasn't more help on stating out some of these ships. Been too busy the past couple of weeks.

10 hours ago, jayc007 said:

But what types of costs in regards to ad/tri are we looking at for those builds. I' agree some should be quite hard to replicate for the average back yard astromech&mechanic, but still not entirely impossible

Going off of memory the regular gozanti would require 7 advantage on the frame and a triumph would reduce that by 2. It requires 6 advantage on the hull, and an optional 2 advantage on the engine would save a mod there. But it does require a number of mods which are extra checks you have to succeed on.

The CROC requires 2 extra advantage (that could be moved to the hull) and a triumph on the frame construction,

It needs 2 or 4 or 7 (to reduce the number of engine mods, it requires a 3 engine mode just to get the strain threshold where it needs to be) advantage on the engine crafting

The hull requires 9 advantage and a triumph would reduce that by 2, but extra advantage would decrease the number of required hull mods (minimum of 2, 3 for the 9 advantage) or the amount of advantage required by the frame crafting check.

To reliably make the checks for the croc you're going need the schematics down to simple and talents that convert success to advantage.

So not unreasonable. And realistic for something like the croc. It is not a simple ship.

10 hours ago, jayc007 said:

So not unreasonable. And realistic for something like the croc. It is not a simple ship.

That was my take as well, but if you do manage to reproduce a CROC, then modding the "military grade shield generators" is as an fairly easy (only a 3 purple check where you need 1 uncancelled success) way to substantially (an extra point of defense in all arcs) improve upon the original croc.

Unrelated the total awesome shipwrights probably relax/do their best thinking while build speeder bikes. This is kind of like Tony Stark working on cars in the original iron man movie.

In game terms they you craft a few speeder bikes rolling over advantage into lessons learned to boost their next mechanics check on the frame/hull/engine. It's totally gaming the system, but it's RAW, and narratively appropriate... einstein took a menial job processing patent applications to stimulate his creativity and give him time to think while working on the theory of relativity, so it's even got historical precedent.

11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

That was my take as well, but if you do manage to reproduce a CROC, then modding the "military grade shield generators" is as an fairly easy (only a 3 purple check where you need 1 uncancelled success) way to substantially (an extra point of defense in all arcs) improve upon the original croc.

Unrelated the total awesome shipwrights probably relax/do their best thinking while build speeder bikes. This is kind of like Tony Stark working on cars in the original iron man movie.

In game terms they you craft a few speeder bikes rolling over advantage into lessons learned to boost their next mechanics check on the frame/hull/engine. It's totally gaming the system, but it's RAW, and narratively appropriate... einstein took a menial job processing patent applications to stimulate his creativity and give him time to think while working on the theory of relativity, so it's even got historical precedent.

Either that or they just keep rebuilding frame after frame saying to them selves... I can make this better, take it apart and restart.

I also like the idea of simplifying the checks also effecting mods on parts simplified ie reduce the difficulty of the frame reduces the difficulty of the mods to the frame

6 minutes ago, jayc007 said:

I also like the idea of simplifying the checks also effecting mods on parts simplified ie reduce the difficulty of the frame reduces the difficulty of the mods to the frame

That's already in the house rules... for the 3 primary components (frame, engine, hull, not that any mods are available for the frame) but it doesn't apply to the hyperdrive, life support systems, military grade shields, sensors, ... although I think that the there is a triumph level frame crafting upgrade called modifiable which decreases the difficulty of modifying attachments.

25 minutes ago, jayc007 said:

Either that or they just keep rebuilding frame after frame saying to them selves... I can make this better, take it apart and restart.

Yeah but that's more expensive and time consuming. A speeder bike frame takes 6 hours if I recall correctly.

5 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

That's already in the house rules... for the 3 primary components (frame, engine, hull, not that any mods are available for the frame) but it doesn't apply to the hyperdrive, life support systems, military grade shields, sensors, ... although I think that the there is a triumph level frame crafting upgrade called modifiable which decreases the difficulty of modifying attachments.

I thought you had put it in but couldn' recall for certain.

@EliasWindrider I just discovered a quirk ? . Seems that when using elegant design as well as a couple of the other options available for halving pax and our RAW, a vehicle with zero pax actually goes up to 1 pax.

Anyway, on a serious note, what are your thoughts on having a reverse of officers quarters? Seems that it should be possible to reduce crew requirements to increase pax amounts. Although I would consider having both of those options in the assembly stage rather than the frame stage.

And I was wondering what you might think about extra hard points either being available in the assembly stage or being there as well... and possibly changing the 'only select once' to 'up to sil'.

2 hours ago, jayc007 said:

@EliasWindrider I just discovered a quirk ? . Seems that when using elegant design as well as a couple of the other options available for halving pax and our RAW, a vehicle with zero pax actually goes up to 1 pax.

Anyway, on a serious note, what are your thoughts on having a reverse of officers quarters? Seems that it should be possible to reduce crew requirements to increase pax amounts. Although I would consider having both of those options in the assembly stage rather than the frame stage.

And I was wondering what you might think about extra hard points either being available in the assembly stage or being there as well... and possibly changing the 'only select once' to 'up to sil'.

I had already decided on a one advantage passengers quarters that straight out adds passengers up to half the silhouette round down. Converting crew to passengers is a double benefit smaller crew and more passengers. The reason it's on the frame is to allow greater flexibility when comboing with integrated improvements. I will look into the reported quirk.

3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I had already decided on a one advantage passengers quarters that straight out adds passengers up to half the silhouette round down. Converting crew to passengers is a double benefit smaller crew and more passengers. The reason it's on the frame is to allow greater flexibility when comboing with integrated improvements. I will look into the reported quirk.

So I think I was using bad math. 0÷2=0 rounded up doesnt = 1. Sorry.

As to the crew to pax I was thinking something like x crew = 1/2x pax round? up or down? (crew quarters are smaller than pax quarters) although you are right and it is a bit of a bigger benefit to reduce crew and increase pax than the other way around... perhaps 1/4 then? And round down to encourage the use of all 4 crew slots to gain just 1 passenger slot?

Side note from the crew/passenger thoughts.

Making a swoop (thinking the Flare S with flight ceiling of 350 m), flight ceiling above 20 m (Speeder bike) and well below 100 km (airspeeder). Any thoughts? Perhaps a speeder bike with a 1 or 2 advantage to increase the flight ceiling? A different frame? Airspeeder that the player just decides to limit?

9 hours ago, jayc007 said:

So I think I was using bad math. 0÷2=0 rounded up doesnt = 1. Sorry.

As to the crew to pax I was thinking something like x crew = 1/2x pax round? up or down? (crew quarters are smaller than pax quarters) although you are right and it is a bit of a bigger benefit to reduce crew and increase pax than the other way around... perhaps 1/4 then? And round down to encourage the use of all 4 crew slots to gain just 1 passenger slot?

Straight out reducing crew is a benefit, without increasing passengers in not a benefit I would offer for 1 advantage

7 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

Side note from the crew/passenger thoughts.

Making a swoop (thinking the Flare S with flight ceiling of 350 m), flight ceiling above 20 m (Speeder bike) and well below 100 km (airspeeder). Any thoughts? Perhaps a speeder bike with a 1 or 2 advantage to increase the flight ceiling? A different frame? Airspeeder that the player just decides to limit?

It might involve some rules changes, but yeah my first thought would be an elegant designed airspeeder.