10-31-2010, 11:16 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Spaceships - Smaller systems
According to the rules in place of a normal sized system I can take 3 one SM smaller systems. Or 9 two SM smaller system, and so on. Which is great because I need more than 20 systems for my ship.
But here's my problem: my ship is SM+7 and each habitat (price 300k) gives me 2 cabins of space. If I instead take 3 SM+6 habitats (each 100k with one cabin) I get 3 cabins of space! This works for larger ships too - a SM+8 habitat gives 6 cabins, but 9 SM+6 habitats give 9 cabins. And all for the same cost. Is this legal? Some of the ships in Spaceships 8 are using smaller habitats. What am I missing? |
10-31-2010, 11:21 AM | #2 |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
SM+6 habitats shouldn't really be rules-legal. A single cabin, on every other ship size, is 7.5 tons. On SM+6 ships, it's 5 tons.
Also, if you use a 2-SM smaller system it provides 10 extra systems, not 9, since the progression is 1-3-10-30, not 1-3-9-27. |
10-31-2010, 11:56 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
The rounding in spaceships has painful results all over the place.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
10-31-2010, 12:07 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vermont, USA
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
There are other places where smaller systems produce some weird results due to GURPS Spaceships progressions. If following a rule leads to nonsense results, adjust the rule. Here are some adjustments I like:
For Habitats I would say that spacecraft of SM+7 or higher require 7.5 tons per cabin -- so you can't have an SM+6 Habitat, but you can have a half-size habitat (one cabin occupying half an SM+7 system). For Open Spaces, a smaller Open Space has 1/3 the areas of a standard-sized system (round down). SM+10 spacecraft have an additional workspace for every three smaller systems which would require workspaces if standard size (round up). I also say that smaller Weapons cost 1/3 as much as a standard-sized Weapon system, but that's just because I don't like the cost progression of Weapon systems. |
10-31-2010, 01:00 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
Quote:
BTW, can I have a half-size engine with one half acceleration? There are half-size fuel tanks, but no half-size engines are mentioned. |
|
10-31-2010, 01:07 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vermont, USA
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
|
10-31-2010, 01:07 PM | #7 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
Don't see a reason not to allow it.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
10-31-2010, 03:21 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Not in your time zone:D
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
Quote:
Not saying I haven't bent those guidelines myself but, if you bend things, they do tend to break.
__________________
"Sanity is a bourgeois meme." Exegeek PS sorry I'm a Parthian shootist: shiftwork + out of country = not here when you are:/ It's all in the reflexes |
|
10-31-2010, 05:55 PM | #9 |
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
Several designs in Spaceships 8 use a -1 SM habitat. I think it would be simplest to just say that a SM+6 habitat can't be used as a smaller system. Larger habitats can be used as a smaller system as their number of cabins follows the 1-3-10 progression.
|
11-01-2010, 12:58 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
|
Re: Spaceships - Smaller systems
This sounds right to me... I don't need rules to back up this common sense call, but if it is written down somewhere can someone point me to it?
|
|
|