| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Captain Xenon
Cadet
Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Posts: 12
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: d6 cargo pods? |
 |
|
I am trying to find more information on cargo pods. I have found references to these pods which strap onto the outside of a light freighter and increase its cargo capacity in two locations so far- the TL-1800 is stock ships, and the YT-1300 in the rebel alliance sourcebook.
wookipedia points to the star wars sourcebook, but looking at the 2e version of that i am unable to find anything about cargo pods. The only place i can find with actual rules for these pods is in the SAGA starship book.
does anyone know where the actual rules for cargo pods is located? or is this simply one of those details that never really gets covered properly by WEG D6? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Z-10 Seeker has external cargo pods. They reduce Space by 2 and Maneuverability by 1d+1. That's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | The Z-10 Seeker has external cargo pods. They reduce Space by 2 and Maneuverability by 1d+1. That's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head. |
But thats really removable cargo pods. They are incorporated in the original design. And, btw, that ship goes totally OTT when you remove the pods... 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True, but it's all we've got
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: d6 cargo pods? |
|
|
| Captain Xenon wrote: | I am trying to find more information on cargo pods. I have found references to these pods which strap onto the outside of a light freighter and increase its cargo capacity in two locations so far- the TL-1800 is stock ships, and the YT-1300 in the rebel alliance sourcebook.
wookipedia points to the star wars sourcebook, but looking at the 2e version of that i am unable to find anything about cargo pods. The only place i can find with actual rules for these pods is in the SAGA starship book.
does anyone know where the actual rules for cargo pods is located? or is this simply one of those details that never really gets covered properly by WEG D6? |
Well, along with adding an additional 100 metric tons of cargo capacity, the Cargo Pod YT-1300 gains an extra 1/2 month of consumables, 1D of shields and a second laser cannon. However, the damage on the laser cannons is reduced from 4D to 3D, and the hyperdrive multiplier drops from x2 to x3 (and the backup drops froms x12 to x15). Price as modified goes up from 25,000 credits to 35,000. This is where is gets complicated. Who knows what kind of mods would result in the exact ship given in the stats? There are, after all, multiple paths to arrive at that point.
Something we've been messing with in another topic is the idea that the ship's cargo capacity isn't a measurement of internal volume, but a measurement of mass as it affects the ship's performance. Adding the cargo pods would increase cargo volume, but wouldn't directly affect the cargo capacity, per se, since volume only gains mass depending on what you fill said volume with. The cargo pods might just be a way to tack on more storage space, without actually affecting the Cargo Capacity at all (apart from the mass of the pods themselves).
However, the basis of this ship's stats are from the 1E era, and Tramp Freighters had different rules back then. In 1E, at the time of an engine's installation, one could choose to install an engine with more thrusting power and less speed. For every D of speed sacrificed, the ship gained 20 tons of cargo capacity (presumably, the same could be applied to Hyperdrive Multipliers as well, although no numbers are given). Using those rules, a ship could be modified to have a higher Cargo Capacity, without gaining any internal volume. Such a ship might actually need the cargo pods to have enough storage volume to match its lift/mass ratio |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Xenon
Cadet
Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
its a modified ship. i see your point though.
shields(-6), reduce hyperdrive(+3), add a laser(-2), reduce passengers by 2(+20). thats a net change of 15 tons more cargo. we dont know if the ion drive was modified. if they dont modify the sublight drive, then the pods added 85 tons. and the cost suggests that the drive did not get modified too much. if they somehow got a 6D(12 space) drive installed, thats a net change of only 66 tons. even a 7D drive would only account for 82 of the 85 tons. i would consider any upgrade above an 8-space drive improbable because of cost. i expect consumables change based on the change in passengers.
the cargo pods must represent cargo not covered by thrust. the obvious downside is they are outside the hull, and could be damaged or shot off. aside from that, it seems the only real limit is how many you can strap to a specific model of light freighter hull, and their impact on performance in atmosphere. the z-10 is a special case as a scout ship.
cargo pods come in different sizes. the z-10 has 20-ton pods, while the TL-1800 has 100-ton pods. its actually a bit unclear from stock ships if the TL-1800 can carry 400 total, or an additional 400, with pods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Xenon wrote: | its a modified ship. i see your point though.
shields(-6), reduce hyperdrive(+3), add a laser(-2), reduce passengers by 2(+20). thats a net change of 15 tons more cargo. we dont know if the ion drive was modified. if they dont modify the sublight drive, then the pods added 85 tons. and the cost suggests that the drive did not get modified too much. if they somehow got a 6D(12 space) drive installed, thats a net change of only 66 tons. even a 7D drive would only account for 82 of the 85 tons. |
I got the info on 1E Tramp Freighters second-hand; I don't have the actual book. One factor that I can't verify that might change things is whether or not downgrading the hyperdrive and the hyperdrive backup got you similar increases in cargo. After all, what if you could purchase an upgraded hyperdrive, but downgrade it for the hyperspace equivalent of the speed/thrust trade-off? With the primary getting reduced one step, and the backup getting reduced three steps, that might net you an extra 30-40 tons, depending on how you played it.
| Captain Xenon wrote: | | i would consider any upgrade above an 8-space drive improbable because of cost. i expect consumables change based on the change in passengers. |
I agree. I've always felt that a starship's Consumables rating should be measured in being-hours. That way, if you are running with a crew only and no passengers, the consumables are automatically extended because there are fewer lifeforms onboard to consume them.
| Captain Xenon wrote: | | the cargo pods must represent cargo not covered by thrust. the obvious downside is they are outside the hull, and could be damaged or shot off. aside from that, it seems the only real limit is how many you can strap to a specific model of light freighter hull, and their impact on performance in atmosphere. the z-10 is a special case as a scout ship. |
I think it's really just one more example of WEG coming up with a cool idea and not following through and describing how it would be possible. You do need to be careful with the cargo pods, though. Although they may not be inside the hull, they are still attached to the ship. So long as they are attached, they will be covered by the ship's thrust, and are still a part of the cargo capacity. Any external cargo pods will probably be conformal so that they will fit within the confines of the ship's acceleration compensator fields.
| Captain Xenon wrote: | | cargo pods come in different sizes. the z-10 has 20-ton pods, while the TL-1800 has 100-ton pods. its actually a bit unclear from stock ships if the TL-1800 can carry 400 total, or an additional 400, with pods. |
According to Stock Ships, the TL-1800 has an internal cargo capacity of 110 metric tons, but external pods increase the capacity to 400. That number applies in space only; the ship can carry only one pod in atmosphere, and that pod increases the cargo capacity by 100 metric tons. Apparently, someone got their math wrong, because if each pod increases the ship's cargo capacity by 100, a TL-1800 with three external pods would have a maximum capacity of 410 metric tons.
WEG. You really do have to love them. If only as an excuse not to track them down and beat them senseless. Stock Ships is just one example of a great idea gone horribly wrong. Has anyone ever been able to explain why WEG thought the YT-2400 didn't need a boarding ramp? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
