The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Starship Factory Upgrades
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Starship Factory Upgrades Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2156
Location: Pullman, WA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With aftermarket upgrade work, I think the cost should be divided between parts and installation. So if the crew has a skilled enough technician/engineer to install, they can forgo part of the cost of installing the upgrade.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a 2E Conversion of the Hyperdrive and Sublight Drives from 1E, with a few extra steps thrown in to narrow some of the gaps. This includes adding in odd-number sublight drives, and more intermediate steps on the hyperdrives.

Hyperdrives
    Hyperdrive Multiplier = Cost Modifier / Cargo Modifier
    x.5 = 30% (4 X) / -20%
    x.75 = 20% (3, X) / -20%
    x1 = 15% / -18%
    x1.5 = 12% / -16%
    x2 = 10% / -15%
    x2.5 = 8% / -14%
    x3 = 7% / -12%
    x3.5 = 6% / -11%
    x4 = 4% / -10%
    x5 = 2.5% / -8%

Sublight Drives
    Space Units = Cost Modifier / Cargo Modifier*
    2 = 3% / -8%
    3 = 7% / -9%
    4 = 10% / -10%
    5 = 15% / -11%
    6 = 20% / -12%
    7 = 35% / -14%
    8 = 50% / -16%
    9 = 75% / -18%
    10 = 100% / -20%
    11 = 300% / -22%
    12 = 500% / -24%
    13 = 800% / -26%
    14 = 1,000% / -28%

    *Upon installation, a captain may decide to exchange 1 SU of speed for a 10% increase of cargo capacity. For example, a YT-1300 begins with a cargo capacity of 100 metric tons, and the captain decides to install a Space 12 drive (never mind how), leaving him with 76 metric tons of cargo capacity. However, he decides to exchange 4 SUs for Cargo Capacity, leaving him with a Space 8 ship with 116 metric tons of cargo capacity. Bear in mind that this modification does not include an increase in the size of the hold; it just means that the ship can carry heavier cargo in it.

_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2156
Location: Pullman, WA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll play around with these on my Tramp Freighter game, let you know how it works.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the 1E Tramp Freighters version of improving Maneuverability and Hull, converted to the Percentage System.

Improving Maneuverability
# of Maneuverability Dice (rounded down, minimum of 1) x # of Hull Dice (pips rounded down) = Percentage Cost to increase Maneuverability by 1 pip, then divide by -5 to get the Cargo Modifier.

Example: A Freighter is currently rated at 2D+1 Maneuverability with a 5D Hull. To increase the Maneuverability to 2D+2, multiply 3 (the number of Maneuverability Dice, rounded down) by 5 (the number of Hull Dice) = 15% cost, -2% cargo.

Improving Hull Strength
# of Hull Dice (rounded down) x 10 = Percentage Cost to Increase Hull by 1 pip, then divide by -10 to get the Cargo Modifier. However, for every pip of Hull Increase, reduce Maneuverability by 1 pip.

Example: The same freighter, currently rated at 2D+2 Maneuverability with a 5D Hull. To increase the Hull to 5D+1, multiply 5 (the number of Hull Dice) by 10 = 50% cost, -5% cargo.




Note: If you'd prefer to use the flat rate credit system, use the following two formulas to generate the cost (there is no tonnage listing in the 1E system).
    Maneuverability: Maneuverability Dice (rounded down) x Hull Dice (rounded down) x 100 = Cost in Credits.

    Hull: Hull Dice (rounded down) x 1,000 = Cost in Credits, plus -1 pip of Maneuverability for every +1 pip in Hull.

_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A final thought before bed...

The 2E sublight and hyperspace drives in Tramp Freighters tend used different rules to try and make the replacement drives unique. Here's a first impression on "templates" (to use the WotC) term that could be applied to different drive stats to add some variety to the generic drive speeds listed above:
    Tight Design (+10 to All Modification Difficulties, +1 when rolling for mishaps)

    Versatile Design (-5 to All Modification Difficulties)

    Proprietary Design (Increase all Modification Difficulties by +5 if installing in a make of ship other than specified" SoroSuub, KDY, CEC, etc)

    Universal Design (-5 to all Installation Difficulties)

My thinking is that applying a template will cause a particular drive's stats to be shifted up or down, depending on what it does. A Tight Design, for instance, might increase Space while decreasing Weight at Increased Cost. I haven't got it quite figured out yet, but my initial thought is that, depending on whether the template type has a positive or negative effect, it should shift two of the three drive stats (Speed, Price or Weight) the opposite direction.

Anyways, it's late. Last post of the night...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Zarn
Captain
Captain


Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 703

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

.

.


Last edited by Zarn on Thu May 02, 2019 4:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarn wrote:
At least one or two of the ships already statted up in WEG had a comment along the lines of "Its ubiquitous design means spare parts are almost always available; -10% repair cost" or words to that effect.

Perhaps the "Universal Design" Story Factor for the ship could also have a discount?

But what would be the offsetting disadvantage for having these advantages? I want to structure these engine templates so that each one is a trade-off, that you are sacrificing something to gain something else.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had an interesting thought about the YT-1210, with the missing mandibles. There are multiple discussions going on in the D6 groups on Facebook about various freighters being kitted out as barge haulers. In particular, the YV-666 has been somewhat explained by turning it into a space-going truck cab, with a shipping container in the open space between the wings at the rear. However, I had a similar thought for the YT-1210. If the bow mandibles on the YT-1300 are used as a cargo handling mechanism, what if they could be removed entirely and replaced with a container-grappling system that allows the ship to dock with a WEG-standard shipping container and push it through space like a barge?

This is something like the concept art from TFA, but it fits better into the game by using the standard container dimensions described in the SW Sourcebook.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been doing some thinking about the various Common Sensor Types, since the Sensor Upgrades in GG6 don't really do anything when it comes to upgrading a ship's actual sensor stats. I'm also going to include some thoughts on additional sensors I've seen in other material, or whose existence I've extrapolated to fill in other uses.

Passive Sensor Suite
Basic: Multiple Dedicated Energy Receptors, as well as a single Hyperwave Signal Interceptor and Crystal Grav-Field Trap tied into the ship's hyperdrive cut-out (this basic-level sensor merely detects local gravity strength and the direction of the nearest / strongest gravity well).
Upgrades:
    Electro-Photo Receptors
    An array of steerable, hull-mounted holo-cameras that detect the visual, IR and UV portions of the EM Spectrum.
    Game Use: Wide-Angle Mode is essentially Passive Search, viewing 1 Fire Arc at a time. Narrow-Angle is Passive Focus, adding +1D to Sensors.

    CGT Array
    Multiple CGTs linked into a single processor that allows for much greater detail in gravity detection.
    Game Use: May use Passive Sensors normally when detecting targets purely by their gravity signature.

    HSI Array
    Multiple linked HSIs for improved sensitivity and wave tracking allows the ship to read trajectory and velocity of a contact ship when it jumps in or out of hyperspace.
    Game Use: On a Located result made in the same round as a ship contact jumps in or out of hyperspace, the Sensor knows the ship's base course and speed, which can then be fed into the...

    Soliton Wave Tracker & Track-Nav Hyperdrive Interface
    While in hyperspace, the SWT can detect the soliton wake created by another ship in hyperspace. This is only of use to track another ship through hyperspace (which requires an I-HSI to generate a starting point and course). The actual navigation is accomplished by the Track-Nav System, which processes data from the SWT to guide the hyperdrive down the wake of the leading ship.
    Game Use: Allows ships to track and follow other ships through hyperspace. See here for details.

    Phased-Variable Aperture Sensors
    Allows the sensors to be electronically "steered" so as to only receive signals from a limited area.
    Game Use: Allows Passive Sensors to be used in Search and Focus modes.

Active Sensor Suite
Basic: A mix of Full-Spectrum Transceivers and Phased Tachyon Detection Arrays combine to provide active sensor coverage at all ranges.
Upgrades:
    Graviton Pulse Projector
    Emites a cone of graviton particles that momentarily highlights any mass in their path, allowing detection of objects that may not be visible to EM-based sensors.
    Game Use: Search mode only. Allows detection (at reduced ranges) of cloaked or stealth ships via mass detection.

Data Processing
Sensor data is fed through a variety of filtering and analysis systems (Life Form Indicators, Electro-Spectral Analyzers, Radiation Particle Counters, etc) to provide more detailed information. This takes the form of added dice on Sensors.
Upgrades:
    Primary Threat Analysis Grid
    Enhances the combat effectiveness of a ship by detecting and cataloguing a target's weapon systems, as well as providing automated warning of sensor lock-ons or impending attacks.

So, not hugely comprehensive, and not exactly in a form that allows characters to upgrade their stock sensors, but it does provide the framework for what I'm thinking. Basically, improving a ship's active and/or passive sensor suites involves swapping out the stock systems for more powerful / sensitive components that can detect at greater range, and then tacking on improved processor systems that increase the D level of the various sensor types. Then, on top of that, there is also the various upgrades that can be tacked on to give sensors even greater versatility.

Thoughts?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2421

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I prefer a system in which parts have a specific cost, not a percentage, and a specific stat for example an engine with Space 6. Then if you put that part in a larger ship you'll end up with a lower effective speed (As we kept the speed die codes we had smaller invpcrements).
But as a advanced version of th GG6 system this is great.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 679
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

having played around alot with customization, and moddifications of ships and vehicles for a while i realized that the rules as written ( + a little snacks from here thoug, but that goes without saying) are really quite adequate for after market modifications.

I think using the stats for any of these for factory customization or factory modifications could be the wrong way to look at it.

Lets take a normal stock ship from a shipyard that produces several classes of ships.
Like on earth and car manufacturing i doundt a shipyard builds a car and engine and everything in one go and in one facility.
I would find that odd to say the least.
There would be an engine essemby, probaly even manufacturing, same with weapon systems.
I am sure computers, smaller parts even to the size of some hyper drives ( that we know can be carried, like the one from the tie defender) and other parts be in a storage facility, and then be picked for assembly.

This is very different in a lage scale than on a single light frieghter player workshop where you don't have thousannds of parts to pick from.

So to me a factory customized ship can be anything from a total restat, to mere ugraded stats +1 to +xD

If we look at the corvus, normally a raider can hold ties externally, this one has a hangar, a hidden one at that.
Going through the rules, looking at the hangar alone, large neough for at least one x wing and two tie fighters and consealble it takes far too much cargo capacity pr rules than it does on the redsigned raider.
Adding the weaponry, and the upgraded systems, we have long since lost the "stock" cargo capacity. then we get the other "fluff" special features that may give a +D to some situations and the greatly reduced crew

if we do this by the book it is very hard, if we simply restat a raider it is much easier, and to me something purpose built on a facility like kuat, i would say anything goes really.

so to me the only way to make sense of factory customizations and modifications and such is to do even complete reups.

If you take a VWGolf they all share hull but have different engines and "systems" indicating that it could be a wide variety among vessels sharing hull type.

then there is the large and the small scale, for the empire bulding something the corvus cost "nothing", for a small planet even it could be a costly undertaking even if they did a total redesign of the interor

having a light freighter highly modified at a factory i would assume would be fairly costly after market, or if ordered spesifically from a small producer, but if they have severla models i would assum installing engine one that is there laredy in storage over the stock engine three would prove very little issue and not be much more than the cost difference if that even.

I would even go as far as argue that the uglies if factoty made woulf not in any way be "less effective" than non uglies, and that they would not shere the flaws of the normal uglies, again due to the rescourse even a relative small shipyard would have access to.

we also have to take into account that not everything needs a lot of work or facilities, and that some parts cn be very interchangeable, greatly reducing cost as well
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZzaphodD wrote:
I prefer a system in which parts have a specific cost, not a percentage, and a specific stat for example an engine with Space 6. Then if you put that part in a larger ship you'll end up with a lower effective speed (As we kept the speed die codes we had smaller increments).

That would certainly be a more accurate way of going about it, but that would require a lot of work, not to mention pretty much reverse-engineering every existing ship type back through one of the ship-building systems to figure out mass and power supply, then going back through and creating lists of individual parts and costs, which would then need an additional formula to calculate how the ratings on the individual parts would affect the performance of a given ship with a known mass and power rating...

I got tired just typing that out...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2421

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
ZzaphodD wrote:
I prefer a system in which parts have a specific cost, not a percentage, and a specific stat for example an engine with Space 6. Then if you put that part in a larger ship you'll end up with a lower effective speed (As we kept the speed die codes we had smaller increments).

That would certainly be a more accurate way of going about it, but that would require a lot of work, not to mention pretty much reverse-engineering every existing ship type back through one of the ship-building systems to figure out mass and power supply, then going back through and creating lists of individual parts and costs, which would then need an additional formula to calculate how the ratings on the individual parts would affect the performance of a given ship with a known mass and power rating...

I got tired just typing that out...


Theres little consistency between ships as is.
For most existing ships I just winged it if it ever came up.
I just went through about 20 light freighters and scout ships and gave them a mass rating (a generic/benchmark stock freighter had 250 iirc). These were the ships the players might get their hands on.
The gaps in the system never came to the players knowledge as they didn't get to plot through the items list, it was done in conversations with mechanics etc. Also, as I see the rather crude way of internal mass/space in the game as an abstract way of handling ship construction, a good construction roll could mean "reduced space". This represented smart engineering solutions. With enough hard facts given to the players (an engines mass/space, it's power output and energy demand) the total effect was a detailed system even though 'behind the scenes' all ships did not fit into it.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2571

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
ZzaphodD wrote:
I prefer a system in which parts have a specific cost, not a percentage, and a specific stat for example an engine with Space 6. Then if you put that part in a larger ship you'll end up with a lower effective speed (As we kept the speed die codes we had smaller increments).

That would certainly be a more accurate way of going about it, but that would require a lot of work, not to mention pretty much reverse-engineering every existing ship type back through one of the ship-building systems to figure out mass and power supply, then going back through and creating lists of individual parts and costs, which would then need an additional formula to calculate how the ratings on the individual parts would affect the performance of a given ship with a known mass and power rating...

I got tired just typing that out...


A simple solution that comes to mind follows:

Assign and arbitrary value as the "median" or "standard" mass value (say, 0, for example). And choose a "typical" ship to assign that value to.

Then, ships that are smaller would have a positive mass rating (which equates to a bonus), while larger ships would have a negative mass rating (which works as a penalty).

A large ship with a penalty rating (say, -4) would apply that -4 to whatever the space move is for the engine being installed.

In this case, the "standard" engine would probably need to be something like "space 10" so that large ships can actually use it at space 6 (as in the example above).

If you imagine installing a heavy duty tractor engine on a motorcycle, you can get an idea of how a very powerful engine would make a small vehicle stupid fast, while it would make something like a tractor pulling a trailer annoyingly slow in the midst of high-speed traffic, but still appropriate for installation in the hauling vehicle (it needs to be that powerful to do the work it's meant to do).

A smaller scale version of this idea is the motorcycle that was built some 15 years ago with a Dodge Viper 500ci engine (not as large as a CAT or Cummins HD turbo diesel, but still "stupid fast" with just as much horsepower).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was ultimately simpler to just go with generic options; characters are mainly going to be concerned with their own ship, not how well drive X will function in NPC ship #17. The only place it might be an issue is if the character somehow loses a ship, but still has enough left to salvage and swap parts into their new ship. That doesn't sound like a likely scenario to me.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0