Another fun thing about designing ships is you go off design your ship - and you think your satisfied.
No - close it down, don't look at it for a month, then see if you are happy with it. With my own designs I did a few and even after months maybe years I looked at them and thought they can be streamlined.
Things I thought about when doing 'Standard Template Constructions' was thinking what way my original Raison D'etre for this. Was I trying too much to do something when it could be streamlined to fit with the original plan.
Note I will come back with my 'fleet' streamlined and looking good. Think of the engineers and mechanics sweating away trying to make these things work.
But then I saw the box standard ships. Some are ok some are not ok. If a overhaul of rules are needed so are some ships.
SPACs - get one weapon system, but they may also have torps and missiles
TPACs - get one weapon system per crew member, as well as above
MPACs - get one weapon system per crew member, as well as above
Escorts - get a lot of weapons but still one per crew member etc.
I know I sound like a damp squib but I remember Battle Tech with these weapon platforms bristling with guns here guns there, short range, medium range, long range plus heat to worry about. I designed some simpler Mechs with either short, medium or Long ranged weapons.
Even in 40k the litany of weapons in 8th and 9th edition of the rules were a joke. I think 10th has simplified it a bit and there is no longer a Rogue Trader's catalogue strapped to a tank any more (iirc some vehicles had more weapon systems than an Imperial Knight or a Titan).
So the thinking is going through some of the SPACs (first) and suggest ditching a weapon system and up gunning the other one. Makes play a bit more easier.
Conestoga p44 (7210)
It should ditch the Protobolt Project and upgrade the Minigun to Triple Minigun.
Point change - nil. Fits like a glove so to speak.
PS ok I said SPACs but this is MPAC and I am working way through the books.
No - close it down, don't look at it for a month, then see if you are happy with it. With my own designs I did a few and even after months maybe years I looked at them and thought they can be streamlined.
Things I thought about when doing 'Standard Template Constructions' was thinking what way my original Raison D'etre for this. Was I trying too much to do something when it could be streamlined to fit with the original plan.
Note I will come back with my 'fleet' streamlined and looking good. Think of the engineers and mechanics sweating away trying to make these things work.
But then I saw the box standard ships. Some are ok some are not ok. If a overhaul of rules are needed so are some ships.
SPACs - get one weapon system, but they may also have torps and missiles
TPACs - get one weapon system per crew member, as well as above
MPACs - get one weapon system per crew member, as well as above
Escorts - get a lot of weapons but still one per crew member etc.
I know I sound like a damp squib but I remember Battle Tech with these weapon platforms bristling with guns here guns there, short range, medium range, long range plus heat to worry about. I designed some simpler Mechs with either short, medium or Long ranged weapons.
Even in 40k the litany of weapons in 8th and 9th edition of the rules were a joke. I think 10th has simplified it a bit and there is no longer a Rogue Trader's catalogue strapped to a tank any more (iirc some vehicles had more weapon systems than an Imperial Knight or a Titan).
So the thinking is going through some of the SPACs (first) and suggest ditching a weapon system and up gunning the other one. Makes play a bit more easier.
Conestoga p44 (7210)
It should ditch the Protobolt Project and upgrade the Minigun to Triple Minigun.
Point change - nil. Fits like a glove so to speak.
PS ok I said SPACs but this is MPAC and I am working way through the books.