[Spaceships 4] Reconfigurable Hull?

[dataweaver]

In Spaceships 4, it's mentioned that the new Robot Leg system suffers a -1 maneuverability penalty if the ship is either streamlined or winged, and -1 SR if it's both. There's also a sample mecha (the Ariel) with a reconfigurable system with one mode being legs. It has a steramlined hull and is winged, and thus suffers both penalties.

How much would you say that it should cost to add a Reconfigurable Hull design feature that would let the ship switch between a streamlined configuration and an unstreamlined configuration, and/or enable or disable the Winged design feature?

[Langy]

I'd assume the maneuvering penalty doesn't exist when the mech is in flight mode, with its recognigurable system working as engines instead of legs.

I'm not sure how to go about making a reconfigurable design feature, especially if it's a free one like streamlining. Maybe make the cost of recognfigurable Wings/No Wings four times the price of wings alone, and the price of reconfigurable Streamlined/No Streamlined, say, ten times the price of Wings alone. Maybe more for the second one.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Langy

I'd assume the maneuvering penalty doesn't exist when the mech is in flight mode, with its recognigurable system working as engines instead of legs.

Correct: the penalties apply strictly to the use of the Robot Leg system.

Originally Posted by Langy

I'm not sure how to go about making a reconfigurable design feature, especially if it's a free one like streamlining. Maybe make the cost of recognfigurable Wings/No Wings four times the price of wings alone, and the price of reconfigurable Streamlined/No Streamlined, say, ten times the price of Wings alone. Maybe more for the second one.

So base it off of the cost of wings? That seems reasonable. Could you provide your rationale for x4 and x10, as opposed to, say, x2 and x5 or x2 and x3?

[Langy]

It's based on the cost of a reconfigurable system, though I guess 2x makes more sense for the wings. A reconfigurable system is [number of systems] times [total cost of all systems], if I remember right. For wings, since there's no cost for 'no wings', I guess it should be 2xWing Price. It seems kinda low to me, but that's okay.

For streamlined hull/no streamlined hull, I just threw out an appropriately high number. There's no price for a streamlined hull or an unstreamlined hull, so the normal reconfigurable system bit wouldn't really work. So, instead I just said 'hey, 10x price sounds good' and there you go. I do think it should be significantly more than the cost of wings/no wings, however.

[jacobmuller]

I was working on a reconfigurable hulls idea recently, ended up calling it 5xArmour cost but that's because I want 5 options...
If you have no armour, I'd base it off the comparative cost for a dDR of 0.5.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

In Spaceships 4, it's mentioned that the new Robot Leg system suffers a -1 maneuverability penalty if the ship is either streamlined or winged, and -1 SR if it's both. There's also a sample mecha (the Ariel) with a reconfigurable system with one mode being legs. It has a steramlined hull and is winged, and thus suffers both penalties.

Aren't there seperate maneuverability penalties and SR values for ground-movement and space-movement, in GURPS 4E?

Sorry, I don't have a good idea for your reconfigurable hull cost thing. Maybe x10 cost for TL10, x4 for TL11 and x2 for TL12?

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Aren't there seperate maneuverability penalties and SR values for ground-movement and space-movement, in GURPS 4E?

Yes, there are. The winged and streamlining issues affect the ground-movement maneuverability and SR.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Sorry, I don't have a good idea for your reconfigurable hull cost thing. Maybe x10 cost for TL10, x4 for TL11 and x2 for TL12?

Making it TL-dependent seems reasonable - although I suspect that a Reconfigurable Hull feature would have the same TL requirements as a Reconfigurable System has (i.e., TL11 or TL^).

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

Making it TL-dependent seems reasonable - although I suspect that a Reconfigurable Hull feature would have the same TL requirements as a Reconfigurable System has (i.e., TL11 or TL^).

If it's really just retractable (or inflatable/deflatable) wings then I don't see why it can't be TL10.

[dataweaver]

You're right: "retractable wings" is a separate but related issue, and should probably be handled as a variation on the Wings design feature that's available at the same TLs that regular wings are allowed (i.e., all of them).

Reconfigurable Hull should still be a TL11/TL^ design feature IMHO, and should be incompatible with standard Wings (but not Retractable Wings).