To add to my idea: Maybe we could give "Characters" a bonus to modifying their ship. I can imagine the Fed "E" CA with her Leg. officers was modified, but not the ship of Captain Noname and his "barely competent" crew.
I mean the admirality would not spend resources on unproven crews, right?

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:56 pm: Edit

I think MRG's and HRG's are fine, as long as the number available in the same arc is severly limited, and their defensive mode is tweaked a little, maybe only one defensive mode firing can affect the arc at a time, period. On Jindarian asteroid ships this may need to be more open, but on their metal ships they probably need some more limitation, although the ammo track does help a lot.
I would also think ship mods. would have to be approved by both sides before use, or just make them optional rules, to avoid everything being changed if that is a problem for your group. I always advocate for the most possible options, if my group does not like them they do not have to be used.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 01:07 pm: Edit

I can agree to the railguns. Shock is a difficult issue to deal with, but should be addressed.

By Mark Means (Markmeans) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 01:14 pm: Edit

I propose the following changes:
(S7.2101) ALTERNATIVELY: A more granular method can be used based upon the movement cost (or towing cost) of the unit.

size ..... movement
class ... cost .................... boxes
------ . ----------------- .. -----
4 or 5 .. less than 0.33 ......... 1
4 ........ 0.33 ...................... 2
4 ........ greater than 0.33 ..... 3
3 ........ less than 1.00 ......... 3
3 ........ 1.00 ...................... 4
3 ........ greater than 1.00 ..... 5
2 ........ less than 1.50 ......... 5
2 ........ 1.50 ...................... 6
2 ........ greater than 1.50 ..... 7
1 ........ Starbase ................ 8

(S7.S731) In campaigns that use maintenance costs, increase the ships economic BPV only increases by 5% but the maintenance cost increases by 20%. Soupped up engines are easy to make but costly to operate. (Premise: The additional initial cost of a tank with soupped up engine, drive train, etc. compared to a standard tank is minimal in proportion, but the operational costs are much higher).

(S7.3201) If otherwise using the alternate system on (S7.2101), two thirds (round up) of this limit can be weapons replacing non-weapons.

(S7.3401) If otherwise using the alternate system on (S7.2101), three quarters (round up) of this limit can be boxes added to the SSD.

The following rules seem inconsistant
(S7.375) says "cannot" but then gives a cost. What gives?

(S7.24) contradicts last sentance of (S7.253) and second sentance of (S7.26)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Movement cost: No need for that, you leave the cost the same as the base hull you are modifying.

Also, I'm not going to decree one single set of campaign rules, so forget the maintenance cost thing. Each campaign can work that out for itself.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 01:38 pm: Edit

What, Mark?

As with ship contruction, I belive that ship modifications are a bad idea. All it'll do is contain loopholes for munchkin players to abuse the spirit of the rules and make games less fun for the other players. If someone wants to fly a ship that has extra systems, or altered systems, they can manually modify it and ask to fly it in the game. It's that simple. There's no need to make munchkinized ships more official. I've seenw hat people can do when tehy play with established ships and it scares me sometimes. Now imagine your worst SFB nightmare and throw in stuff you can't even think of, and that is what you will be flying against.

By Mark Means (Markmeans) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Steve. re: movement cost. I was not suggesting changing the movement cost of the ship. I edited the post above to try to make it display as a table so it would be more clear.

What I meant was that instead of the limits of 2, 4 or 6 boxes changeable based upon size class, the limit should be based on the movement cost of the unit as well. Clearly a 0.25 movement cost police ship has less workable space than a 0.33 movement cost frigate. Also, a CL being somewhat smaller than a CA, should be less capable of modification. The same with a DNL versus a DN. Anyway, just an idea. Its your game and your decision.

By Mark Means (Markmeans) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Robert, The HDW already does this. And the above rules (other than the non-historical version) on its surface seems to be even more restrictive than HDWs. Which is fine.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Non-historical should probably do away with all drone percentages too.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Mark; I think size class is easier to deal with, and most stuff is done by size class anyway.

By Richard K. Glover (Fahrenheit) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Just declare Med Rail Guns as two-space weapons.

That should solve the issue of them nicely - That D-5 can trade 4 Disrs for 2 MRGs? Maybe they'll do it, but it's not going to be immensely overpowering.

F°

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Well, the "historical" rules won't let you use railguns anyway. I'm willing to look into some ways to control the railguns in non-historical settings.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Mark:
Yes, the HDW's do have modularity to them, but that is inherent in their design, much with the Orions. They also have set packages if you want to try for a certain type of ship, leaving the rest of the ship alone. What this ship modifications sytems will do is allow the whole ship to be modifiable, opening the door to a whole maelstrom of chaotic designs.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Robert Snook,
The biggest differences are
1) HDW's are in the game, not optional.
2) HDW's have more boxes to play with.
3) S7 would allow you to do a few things a HDW can't.

That being said I'd have to ask SVC to add HDW's to (S7.228). They already have their own method of modification.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 03:08 pm: Edit

SVC: Please at least add railguns to S7.223 as weapons that cannot replace phasers.

You might also want to add the following to the "cannot replace phasers" list:
- Disruptor Cannons
- Quantum Torpedoes
- Particle Cannon
- Shield Cracker
- PPDs

I don't know about Heel Nippers. I imagine Death Bolts can only replace shuttles.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 03:12 pm: Edit

People are WAY to worried about "munchkining" in my opinion. If your group/opponent does not feel it is fair they will not play with it, and people who "brow beat" thier opponents into letting them take a unit probably should not be playing anyway. Think about a game in which you are playing in an asteroid field, then a perfectly legitimate Neo-Tholian is proposed, in my group people would just say no, it is too unbalancing, unless other conditions are put into play, but not in a general pick-up game. Ship mod. rules would provide players with a little more control over the game, and do not "open the door to a whole maelstrom of chaotic changes", if you do not like the mod. rules do not use them.

The main point is a well done ship mod. system would at least give some continuity and a ballpark BPV to modified units that otherwise would just be guessed upon. It also puts a limit to the dreaded "munckining" that so many seem to fear. I fully advocate a construction manual for anything, but ship mod. rules are a step in the right direction.

I like shock rules to avoid too many weapons on a unit, and it has worked for my group. Unfortunately this means giving every weapon a shock rating, then having rules to cover what happens if the ship goes past the rating, and then what happens if it is really past the rating or just over it etc. If reasonable shock ratings are enacted, and units cannot go past them, munchkinized ships are few and far between, but it also limits creativity.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 03:15 pm: Edit

I agree with the HDW thing.

By mike mendick (Mikey2) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 04:51 pm: Edit

the munchkin thing is a valid concern,
1) some players are not going to know what they are agreeing to,(newbies)and end up in a hopeless game or 5. This will either break them from the game, or produce a great desire to discover a more unbalancing munchkinism of their own. the game becomes less about skill, and more about who can find a bigger loophole in the mod rules.
2) completely unrealized (to both parties) game breaking amounts of chesse can just show up randomly.
3) some cheap mods will become standard to the point of being automatic. (the lab to apr switch, for ex. the fed CC will have 40 power and be 4 points cheaper, or 44 power and be 8 points cheaper)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 05:00 pm: Edit

1. I believe I said that.
2. What fun!
3. Power costs more than labs, so the Fed CC+AWR will cost more, not less, than the standard one. But, yes, people always want to swap labs for APRs, and hull for batteries.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Mike:
It is true that some would use the mod. rules to "munchkinize" but most probably would not and some would like the game more for the greater flexibility the mod. rules would allow.
I have always wanted some sort shipcon manual and the mod. rules are a nice compromise.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 05:35 pm: Edit

What about adding Sheilds? Is the formula 6Shield boxes=1BPV (from Klingon B-refits) maybe make a maximum of 36(SC2)/24(SC3)/12(SC4) over the whole ship that must be distributed as evenly as possible.

So no adding a 8 boxes to each of the 1-2-6 shields of a CA.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Mike,
You will also see folks trading in power for labs. Normally this will be someone who's modifying a FF or DD to be a fleet escort. They will also trade in some stuff to get more ADDs, phasers, and tractors.

Fortunately these things will (mostly) balance out between both sides.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Oooh, adding shields. Forgot about that.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Under the old rules, the ratio of shields to cost was 5 shields = 1 BPV.

I like the idea of being able to have minor ship modifications to customize standard warships for other-than-standard situations, but I would make the cost of changes or additions exponential.

You want to add one box, fine...here is the cost. You want to add two? You have to pay more (maybe the cost of the second change PLUS the first change to get the second change). Does that make sense?

What I'm trying to say is the more you change or add, the more exponentially expensive it should be...

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 07:59 pm: Edit

SVC,
Three items about shields
1) Please have the max number of boxes added be Size class dependant
2) Specify that they can't all be lumped onto ONE shield.
3) Have an extra cost for not reinforcing rear shields.

Something like

Shield	Cost	Notes
1	1
2&6	1	1 point pays for one box on each.
3&5	.67	1 point pays for one box on each.
4	.33

End result, if you toss 10 points on your bow shield its going to cost you 10 BVP. If you reinforce your 30-26-22-22 shields to 30-30-22-22 its only going to cost you 4 BVP.

I know the numbers I suggest are not accurate.