 December 13, 2009 - 11:24pm | By treaty and charter all system defense ships in the frontier carry the designation "militia". The Royal Marines of Clarion are just cocksure enought to find this designation distasteful. However, despite the strict interpretation of the law classifying the Royal Yacht of the monarch of Clarion as a system defense ship, no one has ever had the moxie to tell the monarchs of Clarion they could not designate their yacht HMS. The HMS Lioness is crewed by members of the Royal Marines, who as you can imagine don't have their names drawn out of a hat. Question is what size ship should the HMS Lioness be? I had thought HS 4-5 and to use the yacht profiles from the dragon magazine article; either the Imp class or the nova Class Imp Class: HS4, HP 20, ADF 3, MR 4, DCR 32, Weapons: LB & (assault rocket battery- not sure if thats an assault rocket or a rocket battery) no lifeboats Nova Class: HS 5, HP 25, ADF 2, MR 2, DCR 35, Weapons: LC, LB, RB no lifeboats Needless to say the monarch would have had their yacht retrofitted with a lifeboat. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 October 1, 2014 - 5:49am | Ahhhh! This leaves 19 additional SCCs (12) and two class I, 3 class II (7). Gran Quivera - 8 Triad - 6 Terledrom - 4 Hentz - 3 Minotaur - 3 These should have their production cut down: Outer Reach - 1 Pale - 1 Clarion - 1 Rupert's Hole - 1 |
 October 1, 2014 - 7:00am | Actually those hulls are accounted for already. They are what give the larger SCCs their greater capacity. The Type III centers have 1-2 hulls the Type II centers have more and the Type I centers have the 6-8 hulls. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
October 1, 2014 - 4:01pm | Even if you agree with 1/10th the number (and I don't) it would be: HS points // ships:
So you are looking at over 3,000 ships (not including UPF and Militia) or just under 30,000, including SCCIV. I prefer the second number. Granted, it would make HS 6 and up rare ships ~ only 1 in 10 are larger than HS 5. |
October 3, 2014 - 9:50am | Ok, questions - 1) KH says that Terledrom(for example) has a SCC II and the # of type VI hulls are 4. Now are all those hulls connected? Or are say 3 connected and one is seperate, used by Trans-Travel? 2) Annual maintenance - "Any <SCC> can perform routine maintenance on any ship, even if the ship could not have been built at that center." So, how do I take my TT-456 freighter (HS 5) with atomic engines to Clarion SCC for maintenance? They do not have experts for atomic engines and I cannot buy fuel there. 3) If PGC or Streel build a Type I Space Station in orbit of Gran Quivera, and that station can dock (internally) starships HS 1 to 6, could they not provide maintenace and fuel - a waypoint? Ahh, new form of payment! Jedion and his crew aboard the Terlbar (TT-456 HS5 frieghter) sign on to deliver a dangerous cargo to Pale from Gran Quivera for PGC. They are paid normal wages and fuel AND allowed to dock at the station PGCSS "Galactic" for annual maintenance. They will pay standard rates for the maintenance but will not have to wait. Currently, space stations are for: planetary defense, trade, recreation, agriculture, scientific research as well as construction and maintenance. Rules state that spaceships can only be built at SCCs. It does not say that concerning maintenance. That goes back to what someone said - Type V SCC; can only provide maintenance and not construct but, why does it need to be a SCC HS: 6? |
 October 3, 2014 - 2:14pm | 1) KH says that Terledrom(for example) has a SCC II and the # of type VI hulls are 4. Now are all those hulls connected? Or are say 3 connected and one is seperate, used by Trans-Travel? Connected as in four hubs connected with four corresponding adjacent rings? I'd say they're separate stations independant of each other but working in unison. TT would have their office on a separate commercial station. 2) Annual maintenance - "Any <SCC> can perform routine maintenance on any ship, even if the ship could not have been built at that center." Huh, I missed that... Freighters transport drives and minerals used for fuel. Perhaps they offload some of that cargo at Class III stations? 3) If PGC or Streel build a Type I Space Station in orbit of Gran Quivera, and that station can dock (internally) starships HS 1 to 6, could they not provide maintenace and fuel - a waypoint? I don't see why not. The Gullwind was berthed at Clarion Station (listed as a commerce station in the module) and was able to do all of that. Also noteworthy, the closing paragraphs of Dramune Run mention that the Gullwind had a prepaid berth at Majora Station and if the docking facilities were full, ships would be forced out to make room for the Gullwind. Rules state that spaceships can only be built at SCCs. It does not say that concerning maintenance. That goes back to what someone said - Type V SCC; can only provide maintenance and not construct but, why does it need to be a SCC HS: 6? I keep seeing SCC IV and V in this thread...where is this coming from? Canon only goes up to 3. I'd say the stations have to be size 6 to accomodate a maximum number of hulls regardless of construction limits. |
October 3, 2014 - 6:47pm | SCC IV - planet side, max HS is 5 SCC V - maintenance, no construction These were on a previous thread. |
October 4, 2014 - 3:42am | SCC IV - planet side, max HS is 5 SCC V - maintenance, no construction These were on a previous thread. I would say that at the very least any planet with an "I" economy is by default a SCC IV Other planets could be by default SCC V, however if the planet was say an "A" economy and Light population then "Good luck with your space ship repairs buddy!" Of course a referee could rule that any particular dirt ball with a marginal economy and little population just happens to have a pretty decent machine shop or a really good computer wiz whose services can be bought. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 4, 2014 - 8:10am | Yes, the public (not me) had stated something to the affect: most have High population and Industry. That basically limits it to planets with SCCs already. I cannot find the thread but, I copied it for personal use in my games. |
October 4, 2014 - 8:12am | "Class I Center - Military and Civilian ships; up to 140 hull
points of ships can be under construction at one time.
Class II Center - Military (HS: 6) and Civilian ships (HS:
14); up to 50 hull points of ships can be under construction at one time.
Class III Center: Civilian ships (system ships only); up to 20
hull points of ships can be under construction at one time.
Class IV Center - Military and Civilian ships; starships and
system ships are built on planet-side. Any engine type is allowed. Upon
completion, disposable chemical rockets are mounted to the ship to launch it
into orbit. (The ship engines will not be used. These disposable rockets will
add 200,000 credits to the cost of the ship - not the value.) Only ships of HS:
5 and below may be constructed on the planet due to laws, regulations and
stress on the hulls. The planet must have an Industry economy and a Heavy
population.
Class V Center - Military and Civilian ships may be
repaired only; no construction is allowed.
*Chemical Engines
**Ion Engines
***Atomic Engines
I do not believe that type IV and IVa are needed. It does not
matter what the engine type is, they can mount chemical engines to the ship,
launch it and once in orbit, activate the explosive bolts. The SCC can site
local law and the local government can tax the SCC - it's another way to get
money from the customer.
As for a Class III yard, yes I believe it should remain as a
system ship only. There are things such as shielding, qualified personnel,
astrogation equipment, etc. Atomics are on the high end of the spectrum. Think
about it, I live in a town of 3,000 people. They have a mechanic shop - 1. They
can work on Ford, Chevy and Toyota. I own a Mercedes. Am I going to them to fix
my car or drive 10 miles to the big city and take it to a shop that works on
Mercedes? I believe THAT is the point that is made with the Class 3 Centers. I
just included in red, stipulations for Ion drives. There is nothing, zip zero in the
book that states the Ion drive can enter the Void. So why is it removed from
the SCC chart? (I have in my campaign Ion drives and Ion Drives, Advanced. IDAs
are rare and cost 50,000 credits more but, their ADF/MR is half. So a fighter
with 1 IDA has ADF/MR of 3/3 and not 1/1 (rounded up)." |
October 4, 2014 - 3:11pm | I would bump the hull & drive cost at the class 4 centers. For one thing, you're working against gravity and that doesn't come cheap. Also, those parts and drives have to be brought to the surface via multiple shuttle trips, which also won't come cheap. There should also be limited space available for construction, much less than a space based yard. The point being, there needs to be an incentive to take your bsiness to a higher calss 1 or 2 center. I'm on the fence for all drive availability, although the temporary chem drive is a nice touch in that regard. I'd probably be inclined to make them permanent on ion driven ships, after all they'll be an atmospheric design hull so you might as well keep them. The aomic drive comes into question, you'll be working with open reactors in an atmosphere and I just don't see that flying with local authorities. |
October 4, 2014 - 6:45pm | I think the reason for the cheaper engine is that it is built on planet and does not have to be loaded and shipped to a SCC - hence the cheaper price. As for the Atomic engine - if the engine is not turned on or active, then what is the problem? It uses chemical rockets until it acheives orbit. |
October 4, 2014 - 7:06pm | I think the reason for the cheaper engine is that it is built on planet and does not have to be loaded and shipped to a SCC - hence the cheaper price. As for the Atomic engine - if the engine is not turned on or active, then what is the problem? It uses chemical rockets until it acheives orbit. Since you can overload an atomic engine as a self destruct measure it also makes sense to have a jettison feature to jettison an engine going into overload by accident. That said it should be possible to attach chemical rockets to put a vehicle in space and swap out for atomics but why not just star with atomic engines in the first place? the rules already allow for atomic powered ships HS 3 and smaller to land and take off from a planet. If you think about it the restriction should be only ships with size A engines even including HS 5 ships. Big deal it uses 3 instead of 2 of the HS 3 ship. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 5, 2014 - 2:19am | Okay I missed the part about Industrial worlds only for SCC-IV centers... My comments on the atomic drive --- while they can certainly be operated in an atmosphere (the thrust is not radioactive), I would think popping open the panels to service them (or even refuel for that matter) would be the taboo, which is inevitable during construction as well. I can tell you from working on motorcycles, assembly is rarely a plug-and-play operation and even with a brand new motor it's inevitable that you have to tear open the injection system or pop a valve cover or case cover or something...I would imagine that star ships are much more complicated and tempermental than motorcycles.  So atomics can land and take off...but any service should be forbidden on them in an atmosphere. OTOH a huge air tight chamber that can be depressurized and cycle/collect radioactive emmissions and store them as waste could be feasible, but very expensive...hence boosting the costs once again. |
October 5, 2014 - 4:36am | There is a difference between radiation and radioactive fallout. openning up an atomic drive, while harmful to biological organisms due to radiation sufficient rock, dirt, water or some sheets of lead will block this radiation. It's not likely to pollute the environment much. The atomic engines that both the US and USSR worked on for powering air craft and that the USSR actually built and flew as an operational air craft actually spewed radioactive fallout into the environment muck like an atomic blast produces. Working on an atomic drive will call for the insuit to protect the engineer from tissue damage but its not likely to do all that much to the environment. Water running off of exposed engine parts could be a problem so if the egines are openned up and it begins to rain that might be a concern. self destructing atomic drives while on the ground is another kettle of fish though as that will spread radioactive isotopes. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 5, 2014 - 5:19am | I do not see the harm in maintenance. They maintain nuclear power plants? Also, the tech in SF is far more advanced than the current eyes we have to look at the situation. There is something that we are missing. Example: Previously (1940's), tanks used desiel engines. It was crazy to talk about putting a jet engine on a tank - it would waste fuel, it would burn itself out or worse BLOW UP! Fast forward about four decades and the M-1 series use just that! So the cannon allows an atomic powered starship, HS up to 5, to land on a planet so, those starships should be allowed to be built and maintained on a planet. |
October 5, 2014 - 4:58pm | Okay I can see maintenance, possibly with a waiver of liability...but repair is another can of worms. If your blasted drive lands and is hemmorhaging radiation that's a whole new series of no. So the cannon allows an atomic powered starship, HS up to 5, to land on a planet so, those starships should be allowed to be built and maintained on a planet.
Actually canon allows system ships up to HS:5 to land in atmosphere. The only mention of atomic powered craft landing is where assault scouts are mentioned as atmospheric capable. I merely house rule that atomic or chemical drive ships up to HS:5 can land (assuming aerodynamic hull construction) as I fail to see how the propulsion system makes a difference. |
October 6, 2014 - 3:38am | Okay I can see maintenance, possibly with a waiver of liability...but repair is another can of worms. If your blasted drive lands and is hemmorhaging radiation that's a whole new series of no. So the cannon allows an atomic powered starship, HS up to 5, to land on a planet so, those starships should be allowed to be built and maintained on a planet.
Actually canon allows system ships up to HS:5 to land in atmosphere. The only mention of atomic powered craft landing is where assault scouts are mentioned as atmospheric capable. I merely house rule that atomic or chemical drive ships up to HS:5 can land (assuming aerodynamic hull construction) as I fail to see how the propulsion system makes a difference. Aerodynamic hulls are not really required anymore. Real world prototype tests have shown that a controlled take off, hover and landing with a vertical rocket are possible. thus making the tail first landing of rockets form 50s & 60s sci fi possible. I think most landers should be HS3 or less as a vehicle of HS 5 length would have a lot of stress on it if it landed like an air plane. there would be a lot of concern over its air frame. However with evidence that a tail first landing is easily done then you'd almost have to expect the military or a mercenary outfit to design and build a HS 5 landing vehicle to put boots on the ground with mechanized vehicle support where you want and its done like right now. The caveat being high winds would be a problem so all those atmo probes you never use suddenly become important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaPIPMqTFuI I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 6, 2014 - 7:33am | Shadow is right. "As described in the Spaceship Design section, only a few types of ships can land on planetary surfaces. These types include all shuttles, system ships of hull size 5 or less, assault scouts, and other scout class starships. Scout class starships include military, exploration and research ships of hull size 3 with two atomic engine" side note ~ I was always thrown off by system ships with 1 ADF but 3 or 4 MR. The rulebook states that ships with chemical engines have a max of 1 ADF. Only atomic engines have a limit. "The ship's MR cannot be more than one higher than the ADF. Also, the ship's ADF and MR never will be less than 1, even if the ship has only one engine." So even a freighter with 6 engines slots but, only mounts one engine - it still has a ADF/MR of 1/1. Neat perk for atomic and chem engines. |
October 6, 2014 - 10:21am | Of course there's a caveat to the ADF/MR "can never be less than 1" rule: modifying space ships. You can now put 60 laser batteries on your size 6 freighter and power it with one drive.  |
