High Guard Questions

[polypterus]

I recently pulled out my traveler stuff after not having looked at it for many years. Now I'm trying to do a High Guard ship design spread sheet and I had a few questions concerning L-Hyd drop tanks. I am interested in not only the actually rules, but also house rules. Anyway here are the questions.

1) When buying the ship hull do you pay for the base hull size or the hull size + drop tank size.

2) Is drop tank tonnage generally counted for purposes of hard point calculation (ala Gazelle class)

3) Is the bridge size calculated on base hull size or hull size + drop tank size.


For question (1) I am currently leaning towards just paying for the basic hull or maybe adding 20% cost to the hull. To compensate for advantages of the tanks I would make fuel hits on ships that mount drop tanks much more severe. Also drop tanks would only be readily available in standard sizes less than 2000 tons. Finally I would make drop tanks cost a lot more. The High Guard price I would consider to be more of a rental fee. The ship owner would pay the full price up front when the tanks are mounted. The tanks are also registered to the ship when they are mounted on. If/when they are recovered the ship owner will be credited back a large refund. Worlds that provide drop tanks would of course have a recovery service. It wouldn't make sense to have all that debris floating around in space near major worlds. It would be a navigation hazard for one. A roll could be made to see if tanks are actually recovered for reuse. This roll would be greatly modified by the location where they were dropped.

For question (2) I was thinking I would just treat the Gazelle as an anomaly. It seems silly that you can design a ship with half it's tonnage in drop tanks, then never mount the tanks and have double the weapons.

For question (3) I was leaning towards making the drop tank size count as total tonnage when considering the bridge size. This extra bridge tonnage could be considered necessary hardware for handling tank mounting and extra fuel flow. The same would go for calculating fuel purification plant size.

Opinions?

Alaric

 

[polypterus]

I recently pulled out my traveler stuff after not having looked at it for many years. Now I'm trying to do a High Guard ship design spread sheet and I had a few questions concerning L-Hyd drop tanks. I am interested in not only the actually rules, but also house rules. Anyway here are the questions.

1) When buying the ship hull do you pay for the base hull size or the hull size + drop tank size.

2) Is drop tank tonnage generally counted for purposes of hard point calculation (ala Gazelle class)

3) Is the bridge size calculated on base hull size or hull size + drop tank size.


For question (1) I am currently leaning towards just paying for the basic hull or maybe adding 20% cost to the hull. To compensate for advantages of the tanks I would make fuel hits on ships that mount drop tanks much more severe. Also drop tanks would only be readily available in standard sizes less than 2000 tons. Finally I would make drop tanks cost a lot more. The High Guard price I would consider to be more of a rental fee. The ship owner would pay the full price up front when the tanks are mounted. The tanks are also registered to the ship when they are mounted on. If/when they are recovered the ship owner will be credited back a large refund. Worlds that provide drop tanks would of course have a recovery service. It wouldn't make sense to have all that debris floating around in space near major worlds. It would be a navigation hazard for one. A roll could be made to see if tanks are actually recovered for reuse. This roll would be greatly modified by the location where they were dropped.

For question (2) I was thinking I would just treat the Gazelle as an anomaly. It seems silly that you can design a ship with half it's tonnage in drop tanks, then never mount the tanks and have double the weapons.

For question (3) I was leaning towards making the drop tank size count as total tonnage when considering the bridge size. This extra bridge tonnage could be considered necessary hardware for handling tank mounting and extra fuel flow. The same would go for calculating fuel purification plant size.

Opinions?

Alaric

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Alaric:
...Opinions?

Alaric

In plenty I expect Here put this on first, it's a high quality flame resistant suit...

1) When buying the ship hull do you pay for the base hull size or the hull size + drop tank size.

Hull plus tanks. It seems more reasonable than the cheap canon cost of the so versatile drop tank (see 2)

2) Is drop tank tonnage generally counted for purposes of hard point calculation (ala Gazelle class)

This is the only way I can see making the Gazelle unbroken. It doesn't seem like too bad a solution if the cost is calculated as noted above (see 1)

3) Is the bridge size calculated on base hull size or hull size + drop tank size.

Again, it ties with 1 and 2 and is the way I do it. We seem to have attended the same Naval Architecture Academy

To your other points:

I use the HG cost as the fitting cost. Cr10,000 for the explosive bolts and such expendables and Cr1,000 per ton for the haulage to the ship or recovery post jump. Costs waived for the construction and initial installation of the tanks, and of course in most cases it's the IN doing this so the haulage costs don't really count.

I'd rather treat the (broken and a mistake imo) Gazelle as a clever use of the manufacturing process. The extra bracing required for the drop tanks allows additional hardpoints imtu. This could be abused but that's up the individual.

My bridge tonnage in some rules also includes little things like contragrav lifters, attitude jets, and such, so yes the tanks (or other such things, like externally carried craft, external cargo modules, etc.) must be counted when figuring the bridge and hull requirements.

Welcome aboard Alaric

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Alaric:
...Opinions?

Alaric

In plenty I expect Here put this on first, it's a high quality flame resistant suit...

1) When buying the ship hull do you pay for the base hull size or the hull size + drop tank size.

Hull plus tanks. It seems more reasonable than the cheap canon cost of the so versatile drop tank (see 2)

2) Is drop tank tonnage generally counted for purposes of hard point calculation (ala Gazelle class)

This is the only way I can see making the Gazelle unbroken. It doesn't seem like too bad a solution if the cost is calculated as noted above (see 1)

3) Is the bridge size calculated on base hull size or hull size + drop tank size.

Again, it ties with 1 and 2 and is the way I do it. We seem to have attended the same Naval Architecture Academy

To your other points:

I use the HG cost as the fitting cost. Cr10,000 for the explosive bolts and such expendables and Cr1,000 per ton for the haulage to the ship or recovery post jump. Costs waived for the construction and initial installation of the tanks, and of course in most cases it's the IN doing this so the haulage costs don't really count.

I'd rather treat the (broken and a mistake imo) Gazelle as a clever use of the manufacturing process. The extra bracing required for the drop tanks allows additional hardpoints imtu. This could be abused but that's up the individual.

My bridge tonnage in some rules also includes little things like contragrav lifters, attitude jets, and such, so yes the tanks (or other such things, like externally carried craft, external cargo modules, etc.) must be counted when figuring the bridge and hull requirements.

Welcome aboard Alaric

 

[aramis]

Conversely, I'd argue you:
1) buy solely on the hull, not hull plus tanks

2) buy solely upon the hull

3) solely upon the hull

The gazelle, being design with the tanks being emergency ejectables, rather than true drop tanks, buys based upon the Hull+Tanks for all three, as a special case design, and that misjump is worse if the tanks not raised as they would be IMTU with tanks retained.

 

[aramis]

Conversely, I'd argue you:
1) buy solely on the hull, not hull plus tanks

2) buy solely upon the hull

3) solely upon the hull

The gazelle, being design with the tanks being emergency ejectables, rather than true drop tanks, buys based upon the Hull+Tanks for all three, as a special case design, and that misjump is worse if the tanks not raised as they would be IMTU with tanks retained.

 

[polypterus]

First thanks for the reply

Hull plus tanks. It seems more reasonable than the cheap canon cost of the so versatile drop tank (see 2)

Yeah I suppose that's not too bad since the hull probably isn’t more than half the cost of the ship anyway. There has to be *some* disadvantage to using L-Hyd tanks or every ship would at least have the option of using them.

This is the only way I can see making the Gazelle unbroken. It doesn't seem like too bad a solution if the cost is calculated as noted above (see 1)

This part I'm not so sure about. It allows players to pay more to over arm ships at a given tonnage. For instance take any standard 400 ton design with at least Jump 3 and Maneuver 2. Now just add Drop tanks to the design equal to 400 tons. Suddenly we can mount 8 turrets on our 400 ton ship. Make it a 500 ton ship and we can now put in a weapons bay. Granted this is an abuse but even 1.5 X weapons is a big advantage. Where would you draw the line?

My bridge tonnage in some rules also includes little things like contragrav lifters, attitude jets, and such, so yes the tanks (or other such things, like externally carried craft, external cargo modules, etc.) must be counted when figuring the bridge and hull requirements.

Yeah I think that works well.

I use the HG cost as the fitting cost. Cr10,000 for the explosive bolts and such expendables and Cr1,000 per ton for the haulage to the ship or recovery post jump. Costs waived for the construction and initial installation of the tanks, and of course in most cases it's the IN doing this so the haulage costs don't really count.

Only problem is there is no guarantee that the tanks will be dropped in a recoverable area. For all anyone knows the may be dropped way off in some remote system with no star port. I think there has to be some sort of deposit.

Alaric

 

[polypterus]

First thanks for the reply

Hull plus tanks. It seems more reasonable than the cheap canon cost of the so versatile drop tank (see 2)

Yeah I suppose that's not too bad since the hull probably isn’t more than half the cost of the ship anyway. There has to be *some* disadvantage to using L-Hyd tanks or every ship would at least have the option of using them.

This is the only way I can see making the Gazelle unbroken. It doesn't seem like too bad a solution if the cost is calculated as noted above (see 1)

This part I'm not so sure about. It allows players to pay more to over arm ships at a given tonnage. For instance take any standard 400 ton design with at least Jump 3 and Maneuver 2. Now just add Drop tanks to the design equal to 400 tons. Suddenly we can mount 8 turrets on our 400 ton ship. Make it a 500 ton ship and we can now put in a weapons bay. Granted this is an abuse but even 1.5 X weapons is a big advantage. Where would you draw the line?

My bridge tonnage in some rules also includes little things like contragrav lifters, attitude jets, and such, so yes the tanks (or other such things, like externally carried craft, external cargo modules, etc.) must be counted when figuring the bridge and hull requirements.

Yeah I think that works well.

I use the HG cost as the fitting cost. Cr10,000 for the explosive bolts and such expendables and Cr1,000 per ton for the haulage to the ship or recovery post jump. Costs waived for the construction and initial installation of the tanks, and of course in most cases it's the IN doing this so the haulage costs don't really count.

Only problem is there is no guarantee that the tanks will be dropped in a recoverable area. For all anyone knows the may be dropped way off in some remote system with no star port. I think there has to be some sort of deposit.

Alaric

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Alaric:
First thanks for the reply

You're quite welcome.

Originally posted by Alaric:
I use the HG cost as the fitting cost. Cr10,000 for the explosive bolts and such expendables and Cr1,000 per ton for the haulage to the ship or recovery post jump. Costs waived for the construction and initial installation of the tanks, and of course in most cases it's the IN doing this so the haulage costs don't really count.

Only problem is there is no guarantee that the tanks will be dropped in a recoverable area. For all anyone knows the may be dropped way off in some remote system with no star port. I think there has to be some sort of deposit.

Alaric

I was unclear. What I meant by the costs being waived was that the tanks had to be bought but if bought at time of construciton then they are installed for no added cost. The Navy would buy the tanks for each ship and usually be dropping and recovering them for use on others of the same class (there was a drawing somewhere once of a Gazelle with tanks showing a different hull number, the story being they had been swapped with another Gazelle). So the Navy wouldn't need a deposit scheme. And any tanks they drop off in remote space would I think still be IN property under salvage laws (but they would pay for recovery, there's a small job for some PCs).

Now when you get to the next most likely user, MegaCorp Merchants, they'd operate much the same. The tanks would always be dropped in serviced systems and attended to by corporate refullers and fitters.

The only time I'd see a need for a deposit scheme would be the odd private ship that used a small drop tank. They'd have to either buy the tank outright and hire someone to recover it when they drop it and pay for storage, or there might be a rental/deposit option. Maybe something like twice the fitting fee (plus fuel of course). I have made a few small private ships that use the standard Gazelle class drop tanks figuring it's a pretty common design and so there would be surplus asset sales of them to speculators who would go into that kind of business or just use them as fuel storage and such. I even have a merchant coversion of the Gazelle kicking around here somewhere that uses the drop tanks for fuel, or are coverted to quarters or cargo versions.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Alaric:
First thanks for the reply

You're quite welcome.

Originally posted by Alaric:
I use the HG cost as the fitting cost. Cr10,000 for the explosive bolts and such expendables and Cr1,000 per ton for the haulage to the ship or recovery post jump. Costs waived for the construction and initial installation of the tanks, and of course in most cases it's the IN doing this so the haulage costs don't really count.

Only problem is there is no guarantee that the tanks will be dropped in a recoverable area. For all anyone knows the may be dropped way off in some remote system with no star port. I think there has to be some sort of deposit.

Alaric

I was unclear. What I meant by the costs being waived was that the tanks had to be bought but if bought at time of construciton then they are installed for no added cost. The Navy would buy the tanks for each ship and usually be dropping and recovering them for use on others of the same class (there was a drawing somewhere once of a Gazelle with tanks showing a different hull number, the story being they had been swapped with another Gazelle). So the Navy wouldn't need a deposit scheme. And any tanks they drop off in remote space would I think still be IN property under salvage laws (but they would pay for recovery, there's a small job for some PCs).

Now when you get to the next most likely user, MegaCorp Merchants, they'd operate much the same. The tanks would always be dropped in serviced systems and attended to by corporate refullers and fitters.

The only time I'd see a need for a deposit scheme would be the odd private ship that used a small drop tank. They'd have to either buy the tank outright and hire someone to recover it when they drop it and pay for storage, or there might be a rental/deposit option. Maybe something like twice the fitting fee (plus fuel of course). I have made a few small private ships that use the standard Gazelle class drop tanks figuring it's a pretty common design and so there would be surplus asset sales of them to speculators who would go into that kind of business or just use them as fuel storage and such. I even have a merchant coversion of the Gazelle kicking around here somewhere that uses the drop tanks for fuel, or are coverted to quarters or cargo versions.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Quarters inside something designed to be punched off the ship?!
Pilot to newbie crew: "And whatever you do, don't EVER touch the red button!"
Newbie: "You mean this red button....."
Pooom!
Pilot: "Well, kid, that's why we put you newbies and not us in those pods...."

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Quarters inside something designed to be punched off the ship?!
Pilot to newbie crew: "And whatever you do, don't EVER touch the red button!"
Newbie: "You mean this red button....."
Pooom!
Pilot: "Well, kid, that's why we put you newbies and not us in those pods...."

 

[daryen]

Irrespective of what makes sense, the "by the rules only" answers are:

1) The base hull size.
2) The base hull size.
3) The base hull size.

Yes, this does mean the Gazelle is broken. And the whole Gazelle = Fiery thing is crap.

Note that this is not how I would do it (assuming I even allowed drop tanks). But this is how the rules say you should do it (despite not doing it right with their own example).

 

[daryen]

Irrespective of what makes sense, the "by the rules only" answers are:

1) The base hull size.
2) The base hull size.
3) The base hull size.

Yes, this does mean the Gazelle is broken. And the whole Gazelle = Fiery thing is crap.

Note that this is not how I would do it (assuming I even allowed drop tanks). But this is how the rules say you should do it (despite not doing it right with their own example).