|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So i was looking at base frames and then i saw the upgrading the ship and saw weapon mounts and realized i was unsure what frames were worth so thought i would break it down, and figued i might as well share what i learned.
so first the information on the value of different mounts. from what we know:
arcs:
light:3 BP
heavy:7 BP
capital:12 BP
turrets:
light: 5 BP
heavy: 11 BP
and the frames:
tiny:
racer:guns are worth 6 BP and the ship is 4 BP
so racer is basically -2 BP
Interceptor:guns are worth 6 BP and the ship is 6 BP
so an interceptor is basically free
Fighter: guns are a bit hard on this one as it has a unquie rule but we can asume there are 2 case eather you can use the one tracked or you cant in your build, if you can its BP of the guns is 9, if you cant the BP of the guns is 6. this ship is 8 BP.
so if you can use them the ship is -1BP net cost and if you cant the ship cost 2 BP
Small:
shuttle:the gun is worth 3BP and the ship costs 6
so shuttle costs a net 3BP(this ship sucks)
Light Freighter guns are worth 12 BP and the ship cost 10
net gain of -2BP
medium:
Explorer:guns worth 14 BP and this ship costs 12
net cost of -2 BP
Transport:guns worth 23 BP and ship costs 15
net cost of -8 BP
Large:
Destroyer: guns cost 28 ship cost 30
net cost of 2 BP
Heavy Freighter:guns worth 27 ship costs 40
net cost of 13 BP(rather bad mostly paying for more expation bays)
Huge:
Bulk Freighter:guns cost 24 ship cost 55
net cost of 31 BP
Cruiser: guns cost 29 ship cost 60
net cost of 31 BP(hmm so 20hp, 5 increase, and 50 max crew is worth 4bays?)
Gargantuan:
Carrier:guns 64 BP cost 120 BP
net cost of 56 BP
Battleship: guns 85 BP cost 150 BP
net cost of 65 BP
Colossal:
Dreadnought:guns 124 BP cost 200bp
net cost 76 BP
this kind of outlines how good and bad each ship is in the game assuming it uses all of its gun slots.
There's other values to the basic frames though. The most obvious being HP; bigger ships have more. Many components are cheaper on smaller frames. Depending on the party size and any NPCs some ships may not have room for all party members to participate in starship combat, or on large or larger ships they may not have enough. If you want to ever have a heavy weapon mount then you need a medium or larger ship, or for a capital mount a huge or larger. There are some limits about the size of the ship required to be able to carry craft on board too. As you note in some cases the frame may be paying for expansion bays.
this is more about comparing in size elements, a ship with the same size class with a lower BP cost will be likely quite a bit more combat ready then any other ship then a ship with higher BP. this is just a rudementary tool right now as we only have 2-3 ships in each class but it does show with out any other information that a shuttle sucks and that a fighter is the strongest tiny class ship do to the net 15 hp over the racer at a cost of -1 bp and that the explore is just worse then the Transport 90% of the time.
Selecting one feature to compare is not a very accurate comparison.
By your reasoning a fighter is 4 BP cheaper than a shuttle. However for that 4 BP you get better maneuverability, 2 more crew stations and 3 expansion bays. The Light Freighter is probably better than the Shuttle for a party over 4 members despite having worse maneuverability.
Don't forget the other ship stats, for instance the Explorer, its got a lot of expansion bays and handles very well for it's size. And for a relatively cheap price too.
Lane_S wrote: Selecting one feature to compare is not a very accurate comparison.
By your reasoning a fighter is 4 BP cheaper than a shuttle. However for that 4 BP you get better maneuverability, 2 more crew stations and 3 expansion bays. The Light Freighter is probably better than the Shuttle for a party over 4 members despite having worse maneuverability.
you are again comparing out of class ships, a break down like this only work when you compare direct class, or to phrase it another way small to small and so on and i did state that. a shuttle is strictly worse in most ways(only advantarge a shuttle has is +1 piloting and 1 faster turn and you are in effect paying 5bp for that) to a light freighter and that is the only comparison we can make in that class. you are the one put the words into my mouth that a fighter is better then a shuttle.
Hazrond wrote: Don't forget the other ship stats, for instance the Explorer, its got a lot of expansion bays and handles very well for it's size. And for a relatively cheap price too. sadly that not exactly true an explorer sucks alot when compared to a Transport you are paying 6bp for +1 piloting and 1 turn and loseing one bay and 15hp that is rarely to never going to be worth it your better off paying 3 more bp for a ship that is better in 90% of the situations.
Tatavath wrote: Hazrond wrote: Don't forget the other ship stats, for instance the Explorer, its got a lot of expansion bays and handles very well for it's size. And for a relatively cheap price too. sadly that not exactly true an explorer sucks alot when compared to a Transport you are paying 6bp for +1 piloting and 1 turn and loseing one bay and 15hp that is rarely to never going to be worth it your better off paying 3 more bp for a ship that is better in 90% of the situations. The Trasnport actually costs more? The transport costs 3 more than the explorer for a single bay and about 15 HP. The hit points are nice but I prefer the maneuverability of the Explorer.
I think what he's saying is if you adjust the BP cost of the frame by the prices of the included mounts, the Transport already costs less (and you get more hp and an extra bay at the expense of maneuverability).
I think the assumption on his math is that you're going to want at least a light mount (possibly 2) in every arc and at least one heavy mount in at least one arc. After you've bought that, the transport is cheaper because it includes more/more expensive "free" mounts in the base frame as compared to the explorer.
Unless I'm misreading either the OP or your question (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I think at higher tiers I'm going to care more about hitpoints and extra bay than a minor maneuverability boost, but I honestly won't know until I get to the point where I'm either regularly running/playing high level ship combat or enough people have that a data consensus can be built on the forums.
pithica42 wrote: I think what he's saying is if you adjust the BP cost of the frame by the prices of the included mounts, the Transport already costs less (and you get more hp and an extra bay at the expense of maneuverability)...
yeah thats exactly the point. this is an optimization problem, a well build transport will in 90% of all cases out class a explore from tier 1-12 past this point the 5BP cost of the difference between a explore and a becomes close to 1% but then in this range you start to see the power of more bays and more hp (about 30hp or 35% more).
Out of curiosity I just opened up the Ship Calculator to directly compare the Explorer/Transport. I'm mostly just confirming the math/logic with an example, for myself. I got the following:
Transport w/
Heavy + Light (Forward)
Light (Port)
Light (Starboard)
Light (Aft)
Light + Light (Turret)
Total: 21 BP
Explorer w/
Light + Heavy (Forward)
Light (Port)
Light (Starboard)
Light (Aft)
Light + Light (Turret)
Total: 27 BP
I don't know that that's the optimal configuration for a gun arrangement, but it seems pretty well rounded to me. I might argue for moving the heavy to the turret and adding a light in front.
Anyway, so the Explorer, when compared to the Transport in this way, costs you 6BP, 15 HP, -5 HP increment, 3 CT, and 1 Expansion Bay in exchange for +1 Piloting -1 Turn. Right now, I can't imagine arguing that it's worth the trade, especially at higher tiers when that hitpoint difference and extra expansion bay are likely to be very important. Especially when you'll likely be fighting big ships with the same or higher turn and your pilot is likely to not need the +1 boost to their skill to pull off maneuvers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
dats a right an proper orky analysis you don there. Itz all about the dakka, the mor free dakka da betta the ship!
More seriously, i have not run any ship combats yet, but it seems like getting bigger and more guns on a frame is the biggest single improvement you can do. Speed and Turn rates are certainly useful but at the end of the day (turn?) its down to getting your best firing arc facing the bad guy, or failing that, dump the BPs into getting three heavy turrets onto your frame and not worry about any Speed or Turn factors?
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Torbyne wrote: dump the BPs into getting three heavy turrets onto your frame and not worry about any Speed or Turn factors? You can only have a single turret.
You can upgrade the weapon mount in the turret.
If the frame does not have a turret, there are no rules for adding a turret to the frame.
Mistwalker wrote: Torbyne wrote: dump the BPs into getting three heavy turrets onto your frame and not worry about any Speed or Turn factors? You can only have a single turret.
You can upgrade the weapon mount in the turret.
If the frame does not have a turret, there are no rules for adding a turret to the frame.
this is wrong page 305 directly talks about adding new mounts. By RAW you can add mounts to any frame in any location as long as you have the BP to do so and the ship supports this class of weapons.
pithica42 wrote: Out of curiosity I just opened up the Ship Calculator to directly compare the Explorer/Transport. I'm mostly just confirming the math/logic with an example, for myself. I got the following:
Transport w/
Heavy + Light (Forward)
Light (Port)
Light (Starboard)
Light (Aft)
Light + Light (Turret)
Total: 21 BP
Explorer w/
Light + Heavy (Forward)
Light (Port)
Light (Starboard)
Light (Aft)
Light + Light (Turret)
Total: 27 BP
I don't know that that's the optimal configuration for a gun arrangement, but it seems pretty well rounded to me. I might argue for moving the heavy to the turret and adding a light in front.
Anyway, so the Explorer, when compared to the Transport in this way, costs you 6BP, 15 HP, -5 HP increment, 3 CT, and 1 Expansion Bay in exchange for +1 Piloting -1 Turn. Right now, I can't imagine arguing that it's worth the trade, especially at higher tiers when that hitpoint difference and extra expansion bay are likely to be very important. Especially when you'll likely be fighting big ships with the same or higher turn and your pilot is likely to not need the +1 boost to their skill to pull off maneuvers.
speed and turn rate is still a factor in damage as a opponent with higher piloting then you will try and stay in you blind spot after passing a computers check and then they would be able to often control you by doing so and you being forced more often to go first. this does not mean its and end all be all it just means the slower you are and the less you are able to turn the less damage you will be able to output as you will have a weaker arc somewhere most likely. if you have no weaker arc then you will have a more constant damage output or if you speed and turning is very close to the enemy it will be hard to stay in your blind spot.
I was mostly thinking about combats between the PC's and Capital ships (Large or Larger) that all have the same or worse turn rate as the Transport in the example. The large ships wouldn't be able to do that, since they can't turn any faster than you can (and most of them are worse). That's why I didn't think Explorer would be worth the added costs versus the transport.
I haven't statted them out yet to really run any numbers, but I don't think fights with tiny/small super-maneuverable "fighters" are really going to be a viable thing, unless there are a lot of them. As long as you have your two "best" guns (one with long range and one with high damage) in your turret and "good" weapons in each arc, I think you should be fine. You'll likely destroy/disable the smaller ships pretty quickly because of low armor/hp/CT. At least, I think that'll be how it will end up. Someone that's actually run multiple combats certainly knows better than I do, and if you have and disagree, I totally concede the point.
Now, if you're talking about a fight with say, an equal tier Explorer versus a Transport, I think I totally agree with you. That might be a problem, especially if they can damage one of your guns or your turret early in the fight. But again, I don't know, I'm just having difficulty making the cost make sense when I look at everything else you gain by going transport over explorer.
Mistwalker wrote: Torbyne wrote: dump the BPs into getting three heavy turrets onto your frame and not worry about any Speed or Turn factors? You can only have a single turret.
You can upgrade the weapon mount in the turret.
If the frame does not have a turret, there are no rules for adding a turret to the frame.
Right, Turret is an arc, not a piece of equipment i get confused in talking about it still. But you can give the turret up to three mounts and upgrade those mounts to heavy weapons so you can have three heavy weapons in the turret arc (assuming a medium frame which seems to be the largest size a PC party is expected to have).
Three heavy weapons on target seems to be about as good as you can expect with most builds. Though i suppose you could try to get three heavy in a fixed arc and three in the turret, even going for three gyrolasers in the side arcs to really maximize shots on target but i really dont see the gyros as a worth while investment once you have the BPs to get multiple heavy weapons.
The point i was going for though is that once you've got three weapons in a turret, that seems to be your main offense and speed or maneuverability really seems to go down in importance.
Mistwalker wrote: You can only have a single turret.
You can upgrade the weapon mount in the turret.
If the frame does not have a turret, there are no rules for adding a turret to the frame.
The rules do not state specifically if the turret arc is a single location with multiple mounts or several potential mounts.
You can add turret mounts and nowhere says you can not add mounts to an arc not listed in base frame.
The number of turret mounts is limited by the frame size just as any other arc.
I would beg for an answer from the designer regarding turrets.
Lane_S wrote: Mistwalker wrote: You can only have a single turret.
You can upgrade the weapon mount in the turret.
If the frame does not have a turret, there are no rules for adding a turret to the frame.
The rules do not state specifically if the turret arc is a single location with multiple mounts or several potential mounts.
You can add turret mounts and nowhere says you can not add mounts to an arc not listed in base frame.
The number of turret mounts is limited by the frame size just as any other arc. The rules do seem to state that any ship can only have one turret but the number of guns on that turret is variable based on the size of the ship. I prefer to think of it as a conceptual arc rather than an actual, physical, thing and would describe it as mutliple independent mounts to cover different weapon types (a PD mount with 4 double blaster mounts is a laser net, the huge multi-armed particle lance gets its own mount, the vertical launched missile cell cluster is likewise on its own, even if the rules say these are all in the same turret.)
I do agree that the rules seem to imply that you should read all ship entries as Front (#) Port (#) Starboard (#) Aft (#) Turret(#) where even if #=0 you may still pay the regular BP cost of adding a mount to that arc so long as you follow the Ship size restriction on number of mounts per arc. But it is not clearly spelled out as such and i expect there will be table variation on this.
If you look under Base Frames, it says the listed mounts are their "starting weapon mounts". It also has a line in there about how the "size and expansion bay capacity of a base frame cannot be increased without DM permission".
If the designer intended for us to be unable to add a turret to a base frame that doesn't start with one, they would have said so. Change "starting" to "available" and change "size and expansion" to "size, mounts, and expansion" and you're done.
It doesn't say anything about not adding new weapon mounts, and in fact, under Refitting and Upgrading Starships > New Weapon Mounts, it just lists prices for the new mounts, based on ship size, without any caveats about not adding mounts in given positions to frames that don't already have mounts in those positions. It just gives you a max number of mounts per position, again based on ship size.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
pithica42 wrote: If you look under Base Frames, it says the listed mounts are their "starting weapon mounts". It also has a line in there about how the "size and expansion bay capacity of a base frame cannot be increased without DM permission".
If the designer intended for us to be unable to add a turret to a base frame that doesn't start with one, they would have said so. Change "starting" to "available" and change "size and expansion" to "size, mounts, and expansion" and you're done.
It doesn't say anything about not adding new weapon mounts, and in fact, under Refitting and Upgrading Starships > New Weapon Mounts, it just lists prices for the new mounts, based on ship size, without any caveats about not adding mounts in given positions to frames that don't already have mounts in those positions. It just gives you a max number of mounts per position, again based on ship size.
** spoiler omitted **
I had a nice long reply to this that was eaten by the internet (Curse you Ajit, this is your fault... somehow!)
Let me try again.
I fully believe in this interpretation: When the rules refer to "a turret" or "turret mount" these are just flavorful ways of describing the Turret Arc that all ships have. Every ship has the front, back, port, starboard and turret arcs. the cost to add a turret mount to the turret arc is 5 BP, no matter if the frame lists a turret or not and the only limit is the number of mounts that can be in an arc based on frame size.
The problem, and the reason why i expect table variation, is that this is all inferred. The way the rules actually read states, "By spending 3 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount in any of the aft, forward, port, or starboard arcs with enough free space. By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space." which implies the frame must already have a turret listed in order to add a new mount onto it; it doesn't have enough free space if it doesn't exist in the first place. The way the frames are written up with many not having turrets and the way turrets are spoken of as physical things vice a conceptual arc creates gray space in the interpretation. An AP featuring something that breaks rules or following a different interpretation than an official ruling is nothing new and is unlikely to change many hearts and minds.
While this won't contribute to the current discussion, but since we are talking about medium frames, an Oma makes for a great medium frame
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Torbyne wrote: "By spending 3 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount in any of the aft, forward, port, or starboard arcs with enough free space. By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space." which implies the frame must already have a turret listed in order to add a new mount onto it; it doesn't have enough free space if it doesn't exist in the first... This is why I stated that there is no way to add a turret to a frame.
Any other arc, yes, it clearly states that you can.
As for the shuttle in the the first AP, I view that simply as a different frame. The frames listed in the Core book are not the only frames that exist/can be used. One of the Starfinder scenarios has a fighter with a turret in it - a different frame from the one in the Core book.
It is not hard for a GM to approve new frames, or state that their interpretation of the above (or house rule) is that 5 BP will get you a turret.
Sauce987654321 wrote: While this won't contribute to the current discussion, but since we are talking about medium frames, an Oma makes for a great medium frame
** spoiler omitted **
Hmm... a big jump over the Explorer in HP and CT. A free heavy weapon mount and two extra expansion bays. probably worth the extra 8 BP... eventually.
Smaller jumps in HP and CT over a Transport but the Transport comes with two turret mounts at the cost of one expansion bay and the two side mounts. I cant see the extra expansion bay and 15 HP as being worth the higher Frame cost. Heck, i'd have to eat the 5 BP for the frame and then dump 10 BP into mounts just to put the Oma on par with the starting Transport and at that point the Transport is already a Particle Beam ahead.
I'd place it squarely in the middle of the three medium frames. also, the typical Oma is only 150' which is pretty small for a medium sized vessel. Might get cramped.
It is hard to displace the Transport as the best PC Frame in my opinion. Of course there arent a lot of options in that competition anyways.
Side note: I am really not that taken with Expansion bay options at the moment. Some of them feel like they should be freebies, the Gym, the Rec room, etc. After getting a tech lab and maybe an arcane laboratory which bays are people really looking for?
Mistwalker wrote: Torbyne wrote: "By spending 3 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount in any of the aft, forward, port, or starboard arcs with enough free space. By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space." which implies the frame must already have a turret listed in order to add a new mount onto it; it doesn't have enough free space if it doesn't exist in the first... This is why I stated that there is no way to add a turret to a frame.
Any other arc, yes, it clearly states that you can.
As for the shuttle in the the first AP, I view that simply as a different frame. The frames listed in the Core book are not the only frames that exist/can be used. One of the Starfinder scenarios has a fighter with a turret in it - a different frame from the one in the Core book.
It is not hard for a GM to approve new frames, or state that their interpretation of the above (or house rule) is that 5 BP will get you a turret. So you see the Turret Arc as only accessible if the Frame specifies it has a turret previously existing based on that rule? I totally see how it can be read that way. I hope that is not what was meant but i can easily see it reading both ways.
Mistwalker wrote: As for the shuttle in the the first AP, I view that simply as a different frame. The frames listed in the Core book are not the only frames that exist/can be used. One of the Starfinder scenarios has a fighter with a turret in it - a different frame from the one in the Core book.
It is not hard for a GM to approve new frames, or state that their interpretation of the above (or house rule) is that 5 BP will get you a turret.
That's a more broken interpretation of what's going on with those examples, since the mounts that come with many of the base frames are effectively cheaper than what it would cost to add them to an existing frame. That is, in fact, what this whole thread is about.
I admit it may be what's going on with the one in the AP, though, since it comes out 2BP cheaper than what you'd normally get if you had a tier 1 shuttle and added the turret to it. If you're arguing that that "shuttle" isn't a shuttle, I think you have a leg to stand on. I haven't seen the full stats of the "fighter" that isn't a fighter, so I can't do the math there.
But it seems a bit absurd to me that you could build a base frame with an extra mount point, call it the exact same name, and have it be cheaper; but not just add a mount point to the frame as is. That's weird, to me. If my GM tried to rule it that way, I'd silently thank them for letting me get extra stuff for free and pretend like I didn't notice when they did the math later.
Torbyne wrote: Sauce987654321 wrote: While this won't contribute to the current discussion, but since we are talking about medium frames, an Oma makes for a great medium frame
** spoiler omitted **
I'd place it squarely in the middle of the three medium frames. also, the typical Oma is only 150' which is pretty small for a medium sized vessel. Might get cramped.
While I agree with your point about the turrets, but does the Oma's dimensions given in its description actually have any mechanical relevance? It even has more expansion bays than any other medium frame, so I think getting cramped is something that wouldn't happen.
Transport
Pulse Grey PCU 100
Signal Basic
Forward: Heavy + Light
Port: Light
Starboard: Light
Aft: Light
Turret: Light + Light
BP Total = 37
Oma
Pulse Grey PCU 100
Signal Basic
Forward: Heavy + Light
Port: Light
Starboard: Light
Aft: Light
Turret: Light + Light
BP Total = 49
12 Build points seems like a fair trade to me for 15 extra hitpoints, +3 CT, and an extra expansion bay.
But the cost is higher for higher tier drift engines. For signal ultra, I think you're looking at 30 extra build points in addition to the loss of 10 from the turrets and 5 from the frame costs. I think it's a solid option for anyone who was already considering the transport over the explorer.
Torbyne wrote: The way the rules actually read states,
By spending 3 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount in any of the aft, forward, port, or starboard arcs with enough free space.
By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space."
I think you are reading too much into this entry.
To me they say the same thing, you may add a light mount to a location for the listed price. The reason they are separate is that Turret is not an Arc and the price is different.
Sauce987654321 wrote: Torbyne wrote: Sauce987654321 wrote: While this won't contribute to the current discussion, but since we are talking about medium frames, an Oma makes for a great medium frame
** spoiler omitted **
I'd place it squarely in the middle of the three medium frames. also, the typical Oma is only 150' which is pretty small for a medium sized vessel. Might get cramped.
While I agree with your point about the turrets, but does the Oma's dimensions given in its description actually have any mechanical relevance? It even has more expansion bays than any other medium frame, so I think getting cramped is something that wouldn't happen. No mechanical relevance but from a flavor perspective you are all jammed right up a rotting whale carcass with very little space to move around in.
Torbyne wrote: Sauce987654321 wrote: Torbyne wrote: Sauce987654321 wrote: While this won't contribute to the current discussion, but since we are talking about medium frames, an Oma makes for a great medium frame
** spoiler omitted **
I'd place it squarely in the middle of the three medium frames. also, the typical Oma is only 150' which is pretty small for a medium sized vessel. Might get cramped.
While I agree with your point about the turrets, but does the Oma's dimensions given in its description actually have any mechanical relevance? It even has more expansion bays than any other medium frame, so I think getting cramped is something that wouldn't happen. No mechanical relevance but from a flavor perspective you are all jammed right up a rotting whale carcass with very little space to move around in. Oma starships represent living or dead Omas, not just dead.
I'm not really seeing an issue with space in a 150 long whale, unless your party is a group of Titans instead of normal PC races. It's not just regular whale anatomy either, it's noted as having very gigantic and habitable stomachs.
Creature length generally means it's overall body length, not from nose to the tip of it's tail.
Lane_S wrote: Torbyne wrote: The way the rules actually read states,
By spending 3 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount in any of the aft, forward, port, or starboard arcs with enough free space.
By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space."
I think you are reading too much into this entry.
To me they say the same thing, you may add a light mount to a location for the listed price. The reason they are separate is that Turret is not an Arc and the price is different.
I think a turret is an Arc though. If it isnt an Arc than it reads pretty clearly that you can spend BP to add mounts but not an actual turret itself... unless you assume that a turret is a standard piece of gear that every ship has, but only one and there isnt always anything on that giant spinny bit that your ship always has.
I think a turret has to be an Arc and it has a separate write up on its costs because it is a more valuable Arc than any other.
Sauce987654321 wrote: I'm not really seeing an issue with space in a 150 long whale, unless your party is a group of Titans instead of normal PC races. It's not just regular whale anatomy either, it's noted as having very gigantic and habitable stomachs.
Creature length generally means it's overall body length, not from nose to the tip of it's tail.
Just for reference in support of this, at least one of the explorers in at least one of the APs has an internal length of 29 squares or 145ft and only goes a little bit (about 15ft) past that on the external dimensions. I also agree that the 150ft is probably body length and doesn't include the tail (but I don't know). I think the OMA's size is probably actually larger than the existing explorer/transports (which have fewer expansion bays), especially if they do a map for one and it has two decks (bridge and a few rooms on top, bays in the "stomach" on bottom), which is how I expect it to look in my head.
i would think the only space available in a living Oma would be in its "surprisingly spacious" secondary stomach, maybe a 50'x40' area that could be up to two decks. Everything else would be, you know, organs and stuff. If you want to make a ship out of that than you'd need to cram in everything into that space... and break out some real freaky-deaky cyberware to add armor, shields and weapons on the outside of your "hull".
Carcass ships would fair a little better since you could hollow out the entire digestive track and a large volume of biomass. but i would still think the 150' of "body" isnt all usable for ship space... and at this point, why are we not just making a gene-crafted bio hull or more generally, whale shaped frames? Is it just so we can name the ship "Moby"?
As far as I know, the only ones that use living Oma as ships are the Brethedans, and only (at this point) for ceremonial trips. And, yes, they just ride around in the stomach and direct the Oma using either telepathy or biotech (I can't remember). At least, that's what I remember from the AA, I'm away from book right now, so I can't confirm. I totally agree they should be effectively smaller, assuming you want them to survive the use.
So far, the other medium ship maps I've seen have all been ~150ft long and the expansion bays have always been on the sides of a single deck, so they end up pretty wide (one was like 120ft wide). The picture I have in my head of an Oma ship is one where the body has been hollowed out and the reinforced/preserved carcass is just used as an external hull (or part of one).
I'm picturing internal dimensions of ~120ft long and only ~40-80ft wide, but with 2 (or 3) levels to fit in all the bays. The top deck would be narrower than the bottom (2) deck(s).
And, yes, I want to name my ship Moby Dick. But that's just for all the obvious crude banter I can pull off in ship combat. :)
Torbyne wrote: I think a turret is an Arc though. Reason I say Turret is not an Arc is because it can not be targeted directly. If you take damage in the starboard arc that gives a penalty to hit then the turret suffers those penalty when firing in that arc, but not other arcs.
For comparison on the Oma.
I was stationed on a ship that was 175' long, 35' wide and about 80% of space was within 25' height. This was with a crew of 65-70. I would not call that cramped, although it would count as "common" quarters.
Even if the usable internal space is only 50' x 40' x 2 decks that is still 4000 ft^, not at all cramped for a crew of six. Also consider that weapons, shields and countermeasures are most likely mounted externally.
Lane_S wrote: For comparison on the Oma.
I was stationed on a ship that was 175' long, 35' wide and about 80% of space was within 25' height. This was with a crew of 65-70. I would not call that cramped, although it would count as "common" quarters.
Even if the usable internal space is only 50' x 40' x 2 decks that is still 4000 ft^, not at all cramped for a crew of six. Also consider that weapons, shields and countermeasures are most likely mounted externally.
Ah, but its all relative. Medium sized ships can be from 120-300'. So the Oma's 150' body seems spacious until you set foot on the opulence that is a 300' vessel that only has to worry about a crew of 6. It is mind hurting to think that a crew of 3-4 can actually maintain a ship of that size... the level of automation for even simple cleaning must be immense.
That's what DJ Roomba is for.
pithica42 wrote: That's what DJ Roomba is for. oh no you dont, if it costs BP to have a shower in your stateroom than you can bet that the roomba service will be frame size X 2 in BP. Probably just better to pay credits for the detailing job at the station.
|
