VBAM Games Forums

Mark brought this up in another thread, but given that it applies to the Star Trek tugs like the Ptolemy it applies to some of what I have going on in my test campaign. For ships that should be able to switch out their abilities, how should it work?

From a design perspective, I am thinking that the design should pay a 50% surcharge on the ability (however the design system works) for the ability, so that it is an expensive option but one that adds additional flexibility. Then such ships can be brought into a yard and a nominal fee paid (1 EP) to convert the ability over to another that costs the same or less than its allowance.

For example, in my "To Boldly Go..." Campaign, I converted over the Taurus class tug from The Starfleet Museum site. This ship is supposed to be an ancestor of the Ptolemy from the Franz Joseph design set. Now, right now I have the modules being built and maintained as separate entities, and each module has its own stats. The tug then has the Towing ability and can transport these otherwise immobile module units around, or else drop them and use its Towing functions for other purposes.

I guess what are the best solutions for handling ships of this type?

Actually, to my mind, that sounds about right. The tug has certain base stats. The modules have their own stats that then combine with the tug. And I think the modules should be paid for and maintained on their own. Given the flexibility inherent in such an arrangement, there should be some additional cost. The extra costs in the various components handles that well, I think.

Yep the tactical flexibility comes with a price. Sounds like Tyrel has distilled the essences of my initial suggestion into something tangible and easily VBAM-able hehe.

I think that is hitting the nail right on the head. Your new solo campaign is the perfect place to try it out. You might want to also cross post on the Yahoo group, referencing the discussion, and see if we can get any dissenting opinions.

That seems to work. I like the idea that you have to pay extra maintenance for such units as the added flexibility is a great bonus.

This is generally what I'm doing in my SFB conversion. I don't increase the Tug's cost (above it's converted EPV value) but I do give it a high maint (1/1 for standard tugs) and since I am using the availability system they are also 'rare'. Pods are built and tracked seperately, and are immobile and inactive unless carried by a tug (though I am considering allowing them to be moved one system per turn themselves, or carried (but not used) by transport fleets, since large freighters can carry around a pod in an inactive state, iirc).

Though I will need to create a proper 'modular ship' rule for the Romulan Hawk series of ships. Any suggestions in that regard would be greatly appreciated.

-Will

How about a REALLY low conversion cost?

wminsing wrote:This is generally what I'm doing in my SFB conversion. I don't increase the Tug's cost (above it's converted EPV value) but I do give it a high maint (1/1 for standard tugs) and since I am using the availability system they are also 'rare'. Pods are built and tracked seperately, and are immobile and inactive unless carried by a tug (though I am considering allowing them to be moved one system per turn themselves, or carried (but not used) by transport fleets, since large freighters can carry around a pod in an inactive state, iirc).

Though I will need to create a proper 'modular ship' rule for the Romulan Hawk series of ships. Any suggestions in that regard would be greatly appreciated.

-Will

Hi Will. I'm mxgman88 from VBAM yahoo groups forum, I do have my SFB conversion notes, but they're all in long hand on paper so it'll be awhile before I can post them anywhere.

As far as modular ship rules for the Romulans, you can go cheap conversion like TangoTarheel noted, or keeping with the pods + ship theme for the battletugs just setup a cost that seems right. The basic Hawk (sans pods) would have a cost slightly higher than its ship class (basically a CL so use your CA costs for maintenance for my example I'm using the CG generic stats of 2/3 EP for CAs, 2/4 for CLs).

The pods are the fun part, my initial inclination is to price them at 1-2 EP each and give them a maintenance cost of 1/6 or something along those lines. So a Hawk would cost around 8 total EP to build and equip (6 EP per Hawk + 2 EP for a pair of pods) and maintenance would run at 3 EP per turn 2 EP (for 3 Hawks) + 1 EP (for 6 pods). That makes the Hawks a 3/3 fully equipped, but that is the price for the modular ability. If it is too high for your Romulan's economy tweak it: maintenance cost of 2/4 for ships, 1/8 for pods might be better, time (playtesting) will tell.

-Mark

As far as modular ship rules for the Romulans, you can go cheap conversion like TangoTarheel noted, or keeping with the pods + ship theme for the battletugs just setup a cost that seems right. The basic Hawk (sans pods) would have a cost slightly higher than its ship class (basically a CL so use your CA costs for maintenance for my example I'm using the CG generic stats of 2/3 EP for CAs, 2/4 for CLs).

The pods are the fun part, my initial inclination is to price them at 1-2 EP each and give them a maintenance cost of 1/6 or something along those lines. So a Hawk would cost around 8 total EP to build and equip (6 EP per Hawk + 2 EP for a pair of pods) and maintenance would run at 3 EP per turn 2 EP (for 3 Hawks) + 1 EP (for 6 pods). That makes the Hawks a 3/3 fully equipped, but that is the price for the modular ability. If it is too high for your Romulan's economy tweak it: maintenance cost of 2/4 for ships, 1/8 for pods might be better, time (playtesting) will tell.

Keeping the modules and ships seperate seems like the most complete solution, and your costing solution sounds good (though I will likely go with 2/4 and 1/8 to start testing with, since the Sparrowhawks are supposed to be War Cruisers, while the heavy cruiser Firehawks are not modular). However, I am somewhat worried that this will lead to a lot of extra tracking, as there's going to be a few modules floating around for every Sparrowhawk and Skyhawk in the fleet (and Seahawk?), and those are classes I expect the Romulans will try to purchase a lot of (vs a couple of Tugs per player in a normal campaign). On the other hand, it would save me a ton of hassle when I get around to converting the conjectural romulan modular DN's- the Demonhawk has dozens of potential combinations, apparently.

How about a REALLY low conversion cost?

This is tempting simply under the KISS principle. Something like 1 EP and 1 turn at a Shipyard or unit with Field Repair to swap to any other developed modular variant. Rarity still applies, so if you swap from a Common to a Rare variant then you need to be able to support it. I would also increase the maint. cost (probably bump it up to the next 'bracket') to compensate for this ability.

-Will

Tracking can be a pain so KISS is always a good way to go . Just depends on the players and that's what I like about VBAM its rules are modular (hehe couldn't resist) so you can control the detail level wanted.

The battletugs are the main inspiration for the modular rules, the Romulan Hawks would require shipyards to switch out their pods if I remember the fluff on them correctly. Tugs with pods are "plug and play" and don't need to tie up shipyards, part of the appeal of them. Just have to stockpile the pods someplace safe until they're needed.

Actual VBAM generic "modular cruisers" as I'm proposing would require a shipyard, repair yard or supply ship (something capable of field repair) to switch the pods (since these are warships not tugs). So you have three options for modulars: battletugs (ala SFB), cheap conversion (Tango Tarheel's suggestion), or use a "space garage" to change the cruiser (my maintenance bracket "penalty" for ships + pod maintenance fee).

The battletugs are the main inspiration for the modular rules, the Romulan Hawks would require shipyards to switch out their pods if I remember the fluff on them correctly. Tugs with pods are "plug and play" and don't need to tie up shipyards, part of the appeal of them. Just have to stockpile the pods someplace safe until they're needed.

That's what I'm doing as well- all a Tug needs to do to swap pods is to be at the same physical location of the pods. They can change before movement.

I thought that the Hawks could have their modules changed at Starbases and FRD's as well, but now that you mention it I'm not 100% sure. I'll have to double check tonight.

What I also need to do before I commit to an approach is also see how much a the hawk modules actually contribute in terms of stats.
Some of the modules have obvious benefits, some don't really alter the stats much at all (difference between A and K modules is pretty small).

-Will

wminsing wrote:

The battletugs are the main inspiration for the modular rules, the Romulan Hawks would require shipyards to switch out their pods if I remember the fluff on them correctly. Tugs with pods are "plug and play" and don't need to tie up shipyards, part of the appeal of them. Just have to stockpile the pods someplace safe until they're needed.

That's what I'm doing as well- all a Tug needs to do to swap pods is to be at the same physical location of the pods. They can change before movement.

I thought that the Hawks could have their modules changed at Starbases and FRD's as well, but now that you mention it I'm not 100% sure. I'll have to double check tonight.

What I also need to do before I commit to an approach is also see how much a the hawk modules actually contribute in terms of stats.
Some of the modules have obvious benefits, some don't really alter the stats much at all (difference between A and K modules is pretty small).

-Will

Yeah double check starbases and FRDs would be a viable option for Hawks to swap pods but it's been a long time since I've read up on them. I agree you'll have less VBAM Hawk pods than SFB since the strategic scale comes into play.