BRP Starships pdf - comments welcome

[darleth]

Great job...thanks a lot...

[clarence]

You're welcome! I hope you find some use for it.

[Atgxtg]

Ah, so Standard armor is the best, with downgrades possible if you need to cut costs or perhaps simulate low-tech armor. Yes, I think that will work.

I figured that would be the simplest approach as it allows people to ignore the extra details if they want to.

Maybe the term Standard is a bit misleading though - is there another convenient word for "protection from everything" (English is not my first language as you may have noticed, so I'm sure you can come up with something better than me…)?

Comprehensive might work. Omni-armor, or Universal-armor might as well. But personally I like comprehensive.

You mention kinetic, laser and missile - any more types of damage needed?

Well Mecha has particle (for particle beams-gets past thermal armor and does a bit more damage than a laser. Basically your blaster), Electric (ya got ion guns), Heat, Cold, (neither of which would be common on spaceships), Sound (shouldn't be any in space), and corrosion (nasty possibilities).

[Atgxtg]

Oh, and another way to handle differernt weapons vs. armor types is with special successes. Armors that are rated against certain types of damage wouldn't get impaled or what not.

[clarence]

About naming armor, I came up with an idea: Multi-Primed Armor (Standard), Single-Primed, Duo-Primed, Tripple-Primed and Quad-Primed. This way it is very obvious how the system is working.

Well Mecha has particle (for particle beams-gets past thermal armor and does a bit more damage than a laser. Basically your blaster), Electric (ya got ion guns), Heat, Cold, (neither of which would be common on spaceships), Sound (shouldn't be any in space), and corrosion (nasty possibilities).

I get it to four or five types of damage (laser, particle/blaster, electric/ion, corrosion (will this work in space?), kinetic/missile/projectile) and a corresponding number of armors. Is that right?

And I have started adding Capital Ship scale to the rules, trying to keep it together under one heading so far, with some small adjustments here and there too.

Edited May 6, 2014 by clarence

[Atgxtg]

About naming armor, I came up with an idea: Multi-Primed Armor (Standard), Single-Primed, Duo-Primed, Tripple-Primed and Quad-Primed. This way it is very obvious how the system is working.

Works for me. I figure the norn-standand armors are only going to be used in 2 or 3 cases. When somedoy goes cheap, of when somebody wants to protect against a specfic threat-like when the enemy only uses lasers.

I get it to four or five types of damage (laser, particle/blaster, electric/ion, corrosion (will this work in space?), kinetic/missile/projectile) and a corresponding number of armors. Is that right?

Yup. Corrosion can work in space, depending on what type of chemical reaction is being used. I'm assuming that whoever built it would pick something that would work in space.

A few questions:

1) Do you want to deal with fire arcs for weapons? If yes, I can add it in now, with the upgrades. If not I won't.

2) Is it okay if I play with the cost of the high energy blaster a little? THe way the upgrades are working out I can upgrade the 1d8+1/range 20 blaster to a 3d6+1/range 30 blaster, but it will eiter cost a little less (40,000 instead of 50,000) or a little more, depending on how I factor in for range increases. I'm trying to hit 50k.

3) I can add in for autofire weapons if you want? It's pretty easy. They just cost more.

4) I got an idea for point defense weapons. Basically they can attack incoming missiles before they hit. I figure most missiles would have 1 hit point.

5) Do you want to track ammo for weapons such as kinetic cannon and rail guns or not? I can set it up either way.

And I have started adding Capital Ship scale to the rules, trying to keep it together under one heading so far, with some small adjustments here and there too.

[clarence]

1. I'm not sure what a fire arc is...

2. No problem. Costs aren't very fine tuned as it is now, so go ahead.

3. Forgive my ignorance - could you describe autofire? (My interest in weapons is really low…)

4. Yes, that makes sense to add. Perhaps as an optional rule?

5. Tricky question. For believability, yes. For playability, no. As the rules stand now, they are not tracking energy expenditure in any way, and it seems a bit illogical to track ammo. What do you think?

For Capital Ship weapons, I think the two options you mention are fine.

[Atgxtg]

1. I'm not sure what a fire arc is...

What direction a weapon can fire in, relative to the firing ship. For instance can it fire forward, to either sides, or to the rear, or some combination thereof. The benefits of adding it is that it makes speed and handling more important as ships will try to moving into positions where they can bring their weapons to bear, while trying to deny their opponents' the chance to do the same. It gets more interesting after ships have taken some damage and end up with an area with no working weapons.

Up to you if you want to add that or not.

[quote=clarence;55471

2. No problem. Costs aren't very fine tuned as it is now, so go ahead.

[Atgxtg]

1. I'm not sure what a fire arc is...

What direction a weapon can fire in, relative to the firing ship. For instance can it fire forward, to either sides, or to the rear, or some combination thereof. The benefits of adding it is that it makes speed and handling more important as ships will try to moving into positions where they can bring their weapons to bear, while trying to deny their opponents' the chance to do the same. It gets more interesting after ships have taken some damage and end up with an area with no working weapons.

Up to you if you want to add that or not.

2. No problem. Costs aren't very fine tuned as it is now, so go ahead.

Thanks. I'm trying to get it so that if you try and build any of the weapons you got in the rulebook you get the same cost as the sample weapon.

3. Forgive my ignorance - could you describe autofire? (My interest in weapons is really low…)

Sure, it's the ability to fire off more than one shot in an attack. It is a common trait for machineguns, light cannon, and anti-aircraft (i.e point defense) guns. Some weapons, like the assault rifle in BRP can fire a burst of rounds, and on a successful attack 1d3 shots hit.

4. Yes, that makes sense to add. Perhaps as an optional rule?

I figured all the weapon stuff I'm doing is optional. That way people can ignore the stuff they don't want to use.

5. Tricky question. For believability, yes. For playability, no. As the rules stand now, they are not tracking energy expenditure in any way, and it seems a bit illogical to track ammo. What do you think?

I've got mixed feeling about it. While you don't track energy, your not going to have to worry about running out of it as long as the engines or power generators are working. As long as you got power, the laser cannon has "ammo". On the other hand, if you run out of 16" shells, you can't make more during the fight. Same for missles.

I suppose i could try making it an optional rule. Basically the way I see it, you'd get some rounds free with the weapon, and then can buy "ammo modules" if you wanted more.

For Capital Ship weapons, I think the two options you mention are fine.

Great. I figured if will work out better if we can scale up weapon modules to capital scale. I'm doing just that with the high powered blaster. So it will be a big 4 module weapon that will take up 1 capital ship module.

[clarence]

1. LOL, I just wasn't familiar with the exact wording. This was one of the things I wanted to stay away from - but as an optional rule I guess it's fine. Doesn't it get overly complicated and you need to involve hex papers and miniatures - and then you realize you actually need a 3d representation…?

3. I knew this one too It would be a great addition.

4. Excellent.

5. Ok, your idea sounds good: Some "free" shots, and then an ammo module must be bought if you want more. What is the easiest way to keep track of ammo during play if there are lots of them? Would an abstract concept work, like "1 Ammo Module lasts one major battle or four minor"?

[Atgxtg]

1. LOL, I just wasn't familiar with the exact wording. This was one of the things I wanted to stay away from - but as an optional rule I guess it's fine. Doesn't it get overly complicated and you need to involve hex papers and miniatures - and then you realize you actually need a 3d representation…?

Depends on what you consider overly complicated. Generally it's all a trade off. You get more flexibility but play for it with more complexity. And generally you don't need 3D. 2D works fine for most games. But it is a choice. If you don't have it, and all weapons are omni-directional, then you don't have a lot of tactics in the game.

3. I knew this one too It would be a great addition.

Okay, it's done and easy. Like everything else I di with weapons, it increases the cost.

A short burst (1d3 hits) is x2 cost, a medium burst (1d6 hits) is x4, and a long burst (1d10) is x6.

Oh, also to help with capital ships and big guns, any cost doubling can be paid for by doublnig the number of modules used. So a rapid fire laser than can do a medium burst (x4 cost) could cost 2000 credits (5000x4) or just be really big and take up 4 modules (probalby an older design). or even a combination (10000 Cr, 2 modules). It all works the same.

5. Ok, your idea sounds good: Some "free" shots, and then an ammo module must be bought if you want more. What is the easiest way to keep track of ammo during play if there are lots of them?

probably with boxxes that you check off. I see it more of a problem for fightercraft, missile ships, and ships with really big cannon.

Would an abstract concept work, like "1 Ammo Module lasts one major battle or four minor"?

Maybe. But I figured that a ship could usually resupply between battles. Just how important ammo is depends on how many shots you have. If you got one or two missiles, then it's important. If you got one or two hundred, who cares? I could probably set up a threshold value where you don;t need to track anymore. Something like buy 2 or 3 ammo modules and your covered. Then we could just have running out crop up when ammo modules get hit in battle.

Hmm, thinking in abstract terms, something like rolling equal to or less then your remaining ammo modules when you get hit, could work. Blow the roll and your out of ammo. What do you think. It's your rules. I'm just tossing out ideas.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Atgxtg

[Hexelis]

In my opinion fire arc is definitely important, tracking ammo not so much.

[Atgxtg]

In my opinion fire arc is definitely important, tracking ammo not so much.

In that case I guess it's good that I got them!

[Atgxtg]

Hi clarence (and others)

I thought it might be a good idea to post what I got for weapon rules. It's missing a couple of things (corrosive missiles for one), but there is certainly enough here to be worth a look. Plus it's better that clarence sees it now and decide if he wants to use it or not before I put much more work into it.

Ship Weapons

Weapon Damage Type Range Ammo Cost

Laser 1d6 Laser 20 No 5000

Blaster 1d8+1 Particle Beam 20 No 10000

Ion Gun 2d6+1 Electric 10 No 15000

Missile 3d6 Explosive 40 10 20000

Kinetic Cannon 1d8 Kinetic 10 10 625

Capital Ship Weapons (take up 4 modules)

Weapon Damage Type Range Ammo Cost

High-Energy Laser 2d8 Laser 30 No 20000

High-Energy Blaster 3d6+1 Particle Beam 30 No 40000

High Energy Ion Gun 2d10+1 Electric 15 No 60000

Large Missile 4d6 Explosive 60 10 80000

Large Kinetic Cannon 3d6 Kinetic 15 10 2500

OPTIONS

The following options allow the weapons above to be to be customized and expanded. A GM can use all, some or none of the following.

Options and Cost: All the options presented below increase the cost of the weapon. This increase cost can be paid for in credits or by increasing the number of modules allocated to the weapon (mounting a bigger weapon).

Increased Damage: This upgrade increases the weapon's damage by one step on the damage ladder (see sidebar). This doubles the cost each time it is done. If desired, instead of increasing the damage dice, a flat +1 add to damage can be taken. A weapon cannot have more adds than half it's maximum damage roll.

Damage Cost

+1 step x2

+2 steps x4

+3 steps x8

+4 steps x16

Increased Range: This upgrade increases the weapon's range.

Range Cost

+25% x1.5

+50% x2

+75% x3

+100% x4

Fire Arc: This upgrade allows a weapon to attack targets in multiple fire arcs.

Fire Arcs Cost

2 arcs x2

3 arcs x3

4 arcs x4

Autofire: This upgrade allows a weapon to fire multiple shots in one attack, allowing it to get more than one hit on a successful attack.

Burst Cost Alternate Attack Bonus

Short Burst (1d3) x2 +10%

Medium Burst (1d6) x4 +20%

Long Burst (1d10) x6 +30%

Note: In some cases, such as point defense, a rapid firing weapon's benefit is is putting more shots on target in order to increase the chance of getting one hit, rather than trying to get multiple hits. The GM can allow someone to give up the extra hits from a burst in order to receive the bonus to attack.

Point Defense: This upgrade allows a weapon to intercept incoming missiles before they hit, possibly destroying them. A weapon with this upgrade can make an attack against the missile, right before it hits (just like a parry). If the missile is destroyed, then the ship takes no damage. Most missiles are unarmored and only have 1 hit point. A weapon that is used for point defense cannot be used to attack on the same round. Cost x2.

Armored: The weapon has it's own armor. This has the same cost as armoring a ship, and is based on the number of modules the weapon takes up. The u[greade is usually used to either give a weapon more armor than the ship is is in, or to make missiles somewhat resistant to point defense weapons.

Increased Ammunition: This upgrade increases the amount of ammunition available for a weapon.

Shots = Ammuntion Modules/Weapon Modules x 100

Spinal Weapon Mount: This upgrade allows the weapon to tap directly into the ship's engines. The ship is pretty much built around the weapon. This allows for a very powerful weapon, but one with some serious limitations. A Spinal Weapon:

-take s1 round to charge up per module it takes up.

-gets one or more free upgrades based on the total number of engine modules

Engine Modules Free Upgrades

1 1

2-3 2

4-7 3

8-15 4

16-31 5

32-63 6

64-127 7

128-255 8

x2 +1

-uses up all the ship's engine power when fired, dropping the ship's Speed to 0 in turn after it is fired.

-a spinal weapon mount double the weapon's cost. (x2).

[Atgxtg]

Oops, I forgot the damage ladder

1d4

1d6

1d8

1d10

2d6

2d8

3d6

2d10

3d8

4d6

3d10

5d6

4d8

4d10

5d8

5d10

[clarence]

This looks very, very good! It makes a great addition to the rules, and adding them in as options is perfect. The combat rules will feel much more well-rounded now. Looking forward to seeing more!

Some questions:

Why +1 for Blaster and Ion gun? Isn't it better to stick to the damage ladder, now that we have one?

The Spinal Weapon is great! I have some problems with the free upgrades though. Maybe only range and damage upgrades are applicable with giant cannons like these? Fire arc, Autofire and Point defense at least seems a bit off. Instead perhaps something like "Continuous fire"?

Are you planning for more info on fire arcs? I can make the final graphics, if any are needed. Are blank hex maps needed too?

@Hexelis: Thanks for the comment - it seems Atgxtg got you covered on that. : )

[Atgxtg]

This looks very, very good! It makes a great addition to the rules, and adding them in as options is perfect. The combat rules will feel much more well-rounded now. Looking forward to seeing more!

Whew! I wasn't sure if you'd like it.

Why +1 for Blaster and Ion gun? Isn't it better to stick to the damage ladder, now that we have one?

Because your original weapons had +1s.

Ideally, I'd like to tweak this so that you could build any of the sample weapons from the ground up and get the same cost. I didn't quite manage it, but I haven't given up on the idea yet. That way somebody would be able to build any weapon they wanted to, and not need to base it on one of the existing weapons. .

The Spinal Weapon is great! I have some problems with the free upgrades though. Maybe only range and damage upgrades are applicable with giant cannons like these? Fire arc, Autofire and Point defense at least seems a bit off. Instead perhaps something like "Continuous fire"?

I originally had it as damage or range only but figured I'd allow the other stuff to keep things as flexible as possible. I could see a case being made for autofire, but not fire arc or point defense.

What do you mean by continuous fire. Something like a a cutting beam that lasts the round, or something that lasts multiple rounds?

Are you planning for more info on fire arcs? I can make the final graphics, if any are needed. Are blank hex maps needed too?

Uh, yeah, sorry. I forgot to include that. Basically I kept it simple and like most games with fire arcs, ships have four. Forward (in front), Aft (in back), Starboard (right side), Port (Left side). That should cover it.

I don't know if you want to use hex maps, a square grid or just some sort of 90 degree wedges. I just went with the bare minimum I thought was necessary to handle fire arcs.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

I was looking over the Size table, ad I noticed that there is roughly a 1:1 correlation between length and number of modules. Is that intentional?

Would 300 modules (75 capital ship scale) seem good for a space cruiser or battleship? I'm thinking there might be problems fitting enough crew on board. Do you allow "hotbunking"?

[clarence]

Do you allow "hotbunking"?

Oh yes, in Capital Ship scale I would say it's ok. In other cases it might get too crowded (?). And 300 modules seems like a good size!

I was looking over the Size table, ad I noticed that there is roughly a 1:1 correlation between length and number of modules. Is that intentional?

Yes, but only as a rough guide.

What do you mean by continuous fire. Something like a a cutting beam that lasts the round, or something that lasts multiple rounds?

I'm not sure how useful it would be, but I was thinking multiple rounds. Death Star was my vague point of reference - not sure if that was what you had in mind originally...

Because your original weapons had +1s.

Ideally, I'd like to tweak this so that you could build any of the sample weapons from the ground up and get the same cost. I didn't quite manage it, but I haven't given up on the idea yet. That way somebody would be able to build any weapon they wanted to, and not need to base it on one of the existing weapons.

I get it! This flexibility seems like a good idea. How do the original damages relate to BRP Mecha - you see no need to adjust them?

Uh, yeah, sorry. I forgot to include that. Basically I kept it simple and like most games with fire arcs, ships have four. Forward (in front), Aft (in back), Starboard (right side), Port (Left side). That should cover it.

I don't know if you want to use hex maps, a square grid or just some sort of 90 degree wedges. I just went with the bare minimum I thought was necessary to handle fire arcs.

Four fire arcs seems logical, and keeping the system simple is very good. Is it possible to use the fire arc rules without some kind of miniatures?

[Atgxtg]

Oh yes, in Capital Ship scale I would say it's ok. In other cases it might get too crowded (?). And 300 modules seems like a good size!

I was thinking that if you had some sort of rec room/common area you could probably just get by with bunks. What I'm worried about is that captial ships in SciFi tend to have crews in the hundred or thousands, and at 1 modules per crewman (capital scale) we'd run out of room for engines, weapons, and all that junk.

A 300m long Constitution-class cruiser (Star Trek) with a crew of 430, for instance. But if we could use bunk beds and put 8 or 16 crew into a capital scale modules, we could cram the crew into 30-60 modules and leave 240 free for the rest of the ship.

Yes, but only as a rough guide.

It's a start. We could probably fit most ships within 50% of that either way.

Or, if you wanted to, you could assume that Capital ships were twice as wide and twice as tall as small ships, and that would give you 1 capital ship scale module per meter. Which might be nice for design purposes.

I'm not sure how useful it would be, but I was thinking multiple rounds. Death Star was my vague point of reference - not sure if that was what you had in mind originally...

I was thinking more along the lines of the Wave Motion Gun from Space Battleship Yamato, or the super-dimension-energy cannon from Macross.

I'm still not following you. In the films the Death Star fires and then has to recharge. If you mean the second Death Star, you could probably mimic that with a big engine core (for damage power ups) and a relatively small weapon to get a faster fire rate. Or I could put in a rapid charge option, so you could recharge the weapon faster.

But since Death stars are hundred of kilometers long, they would have enough spaces available to build a really nasty main gun. The smallest ratings given for a Death Star is 120 kilometers, so assuming half the modules for being a sphere, we still would have 60,000 modules! (20,000 Capital Scale!). Assuming 4096 capital scale modules to make of the main gun, we'd get a superlaser that did 5d10 damage, before the spinal weapon bonus.

If we assume 4096 capital scale modules for engines () we'd end up with off the ladder (i'll have to expand it!) to something like 9d8 damage, or if you really want to be mean, 5d10+14.

Hmm, if we go with the big, 900km long Death Star II, that would be 450000 modules/112500 capital scale, and probably a 32768 capital modules for the superlaser!

I get it! This flexibility seems like a good idea. How do the original damages relate to BRP Mecha - you see no need to adjust them?

No need to adjust, because Mecha uses tables with several examples of each weapon, so it's fairly easy to match up weapons. Your laser might be a 4 MW laser, and so on. The biggest problems are the +1s and there is a way to explain that in BRP Mecha, too.

Oh, I can get a universal method for designing weapons working, but I'd probably have to adjust the costs a little, or give certain types of weapons some sort of special bonus to even things out. Right now, the problem is that the blaster and the ion cannon both end up costing the same with the design system, since the increased damage is offset by the reduced range.

super-dimension-energy cannon

Four fire arcs seems logical, and keeping the system simple is very good. Is it possible to use the fire arc rules without some kind of miniatures?

Edited May 8, 2014 by Atgxtg

[clarence]

I was thinking that if you had some sort of rec room/common area you could probably just get by with bunks. What I'm worried about is that captial ships in SciFi tend to have crews in the hundred or thousands, and at 1 modules per crewman (capital scale) we'd run out of room for engines, weapons, and all that junk.

A 300m long Constitution-class cruiser (Star Trek) with a crew of 430, for instance. But if we could use bunk beds and put 8 or 16 crew into a capital scale modules, we could cram the crew into 30-60 modules and leave 240 free for the rest of the ship.

Well, I think that as long as we consider the crew some kind of military personnel, (hot) bunks with 8 crew per Capital Ship module would be fine. (I have always wondered though what all those people are doing all day on sci-fi battleships…) Is 240 modules enough for the other stuff?

Or, if you wanted to,you could assume that Capital ships were twice as wide and twice as tall as small ships, and that would give you 1 capital ship scale module per meter. Which might be nice for design purposes.

Not sure I follow you here...

I was thinking more along the lines of the Wave Motion Gun from Space Battleship Yamato, or the super-dimension-energy cannon from Macross.

I'm still not following you. In the films the Death Star fires and then has to recharge. If you mean the second Death Star, you could probably mimic that with a big engine core (for damage power ups) and a relatively small weapon to get a faster fire rate. Or I could put in a rapid charge option, so you could recharge the weapon faster.

But since Death stars are hundred of kilometers long, they would have enough spaces available to build a really nasty main gun. The smallest ratings given for a Death Star is 120 kilometers, so assuming half the modules for being a sphere, we still would have 60,000 modules! (20,000 Capital Scale!). Assuming 4096 capital scale modules to make of the main gun, we'd get a superlaser that did 5d10 damage, before the spinal weapon bonus.

If we assume 4096 capital scale modules for engines () we'd end up with off the ladder (i'll have to expand it!) to something like 9d8 damage, or if you really want to be mean, 5d10+14.

Hmm, if we go with the big, 900km long Death Star II, that would be 450000 modules/112500 capital scale, and probably a 32768 capital modules for the superlaser!

Love the number crunching you've done here! : ) For continuous fire rules, I would say we drop it. It was a very vague idea to start with, and I don't see it working very well. What I can't stop thinking about though, is how many hit points a medium sized, earth-like planet has. : ) Death Star's spinal weapon would have to beat that, right? It is too much to ask of the rules to simulate everything from a small shuttle up to Death Star though.

The biggest problems are the +1s and there is a way to explain that in BRP Mecha, too.

We could do away with the +1s, if it makes the system neater/easier. I'm ok with that.

Yeah, there is a way to do it without using miniatures. You do up a little list of maneuvers, and they determine the relative facings. For example:

Close: The ship flies directly towards a chosen target. It can fire forward facing weapons at the target.

Open: The ship files away from it's chosen target. It can fire aft facing weapons at the target.

Circle: The Ship flies in an arc or complete circle around the chosen target. It can fire weapons on one side (port of starboard) at the target.

...and so on. I can do up something if you want.

I think we can wait and see if it is needed perhaps, and go with miniatures for arcs. Or what do you think - is it better to give both options? Or will too many options make the rules confusing?

[NathanIW]

Too many options definitely will make things more confusing. I think things like firing arcs, or auto fire, or weapons vs armour type, or hit locations belong in a second document of optional rules. Or at the very least, as appendices at the end of the same document.

[Atgxtg]

Well, I think that as long as we consider the crew some kind of military personnel, (hot) bunks with 8 crew per Capital Ship module would be fine. (I have always wondered though what all those people are doing all day on sci-fi battleships…) Is 240 modules enough for the other stuff?

They must be doing something, even if we usually see the same half dozen people doing everything on the TV shows.

I don't know if 240 is enough. I haven't tried to build a capital ship yet. I might try building the Enterprise over the weekend. I've got a lot of data for it. and would love to covert phaser "types" to damage dice.

Not sure I follow you here...

Okay, we assume that gnerally a ship has a number of modules equal to it's length in meters, right? So it's like it is made up of 100 1m x1m modules laid end out end. It isn't, but just visualize that for a moment...

Times up! Now captial scale is 4 times the normal scale, so a 100 meter long captial ship would be made up of only 25 captial scale modules. If laid end to end these modules would still be 100 meters long, so the modules must be bigger. If the width and height are the same (1m) then the length would have to be 4m long.

But... if we doubled the height and width to 2m each, we could keep the length at 1m, and the 100m long captial ship would take up 100 capital scale modules instead of starship scale. Get it? It would

1) Allow us to keep the modules to length ratio of 1:1

2) Save us from dividing by 4 to get into capital scale.

Love the number crunching you've done here! : ) For continuous fire rules, I would say we drop it. It was a very vague idea to start with, and I don't see it working very well. What I can't stop thinking about though, is how many hit points a medium sized, earth-like planet has. : ) Death Star's spinal weapon would have to beat that, right? It is too much to ask of the rules to simulate everything from a small shuttle up to Death Star though.

=

Oh, I excell at number crunching-just ask anyone around these forums.

How many hit points would an Earth-like (Class M?) planet have?

Well, Earth has a mass of 5.97219×10^24 kg, which works out to 5.97219×10^21 metric tonnes, or about 6.5993^21 short tons. Since BRP uses 1/10th the short tons as the SIZ, we get a SIZ of 6.5993^20! If we assume that hit points equal SIZ, that's a lot of hit point! That drops down to about in Sptarship/Mecha scale. it would still have 6.5993^19 points! We'd never be able to blow one up, even if we made an Earth sized Death Star, because BRP's SIZ stat is linear at the high end, but the weapon system isn't.

But...I've been toying around will keeping the doubling progression for SIZ for all mass scores. If we did that, the Earth would "only" be SIZ 541, and have 541 hit points. At Emcha scale that is only 54 points. Which is only around 10d10 on the weapon table. That we can do. Heck, we can sometimes do it with the examples I wrote up. To get to 10d10 I'd just need to make the weapon bigger.

Plus, we designed the thing at TL 13, and Star Wars is probably closer to TL 15.

So I can get it to work if you want!

We could do away with the +1s, if it makes the system neater/easier. I'm ok with that.

It's not the +1 that is causing the problem, just that a weapon that does 1d8+1 is one step higher on the damage ladder than one that does 1d8, and thus costs a little more. As it stands now the ion cannon is two steps higher on damage, than the blaster, but two steps lower on range, so it ends up with the same cost in the design system.

I can play around the with relationship between damage and range. Right now +1 step one damage is equal to a 50% increase in range.

I'll post the desing stuff so you can follow what I'm trying to do.

I think we can wait and see if it is needed perhaps, and go with miniatures for arcs. Or what do you think - is it better to give both options?

We can wait and see.

Or will too many options make the rules confusing?

Remember what RPG this is? The BGB is probably the poster child of RPGs as far as options go. You can put in as many options as you want to, but you don't need to put in any. Or you could collect the optional rules and put them in a separate document. It's you call.

[Baron]

Too many options definitely will make things more confusing. I think things like firing arcs, or auto fire, or weapons vs armour type, or hit locations belong in a second document of optional rules. Or at the very least, as appendices at the end of the same document.

Yes. IMO, keep the original document's simplicity. Correct and fine-tune to make it smooth and consistent. Put all these other options in an Appendix at the end, entitled "Advanced Options."

[NathanIW]

I think tying modules to a set size is a bad idea. A module should have an average size that can be determined after the fact, but not a defined one set before a ship is designed. There are too many possible configurations to have a module to metre ratio set in advance. You can have ships that are cylinders and ships that are spheres and they can have the same volume but very different lengths. I think general size categories is the way to go and a range of lengths (or displacement) appropriate for a given number of modules.