GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]

[nik1979]

Considering to Bridge UT, HT and ISW

Couldn't ship costs follow the UT/HT x2 cost options? The escalating cost of +2 HT for x4 is a too big. Considering warship or frontier merchants who are required to operating far from possible proper support services, costs of X4 for a +2 HT seems to me inconsistent. Considering the huge cost jump, couldn't there be better examples of why it is such a valuable advantage that it justifies x4 cost? Because if its not that justifiable and from how I've noticed how my group looks at it then that rule should be reconisidered.

In my examination and tinkering, the Cheap Option in UT/HT is much better. Since Cheap can increase the mass, it will make a ship certainly slower. Example: Cheap Hero Class will have an Accel of 1.2 vs 1.5. Since Cheap also has the fragile option (-2 HT) the option for reliable trade off for price is still available.

Separating the x2 cost categories to Rugged and Expensive is also viable. The Rugged modifier will slow a ship down (+20% mass; Ex. Rugged Hero Class Accel 1.4), probably not doubling the DR (or just giving a +10% DR instead), increasing the HT by 2. Mixing Rugged but Cheap (heavy and not the fragile) option creates a can have x1.8 Mass and makes for a slow but affordable Frontier Operating Ship (Hero Class at Accel 1.2).

The expensive option, which really isn't that ideal for ships that are supposed to work in rugged conditions, would be great with a yacht (Accel 2.0 to 2.5), interplanetary shuttle (accel 1.3 to 1.5).

On Accel, isnt a difference between two accel, ex. Accel 1 and 6, merit a bonus far greater than half the difference? In the duration of a combat round, i just find the bonus disproportionate to my experience in flight simulations and how TDMs are scaled.

Are there inertia dampers in ships? Because, I'm wondering at the description of repulsors and how much they are related to inertia dampers.