"Vehicles" for bases or vehicles

[cbullard]

[EDIT: Someone has rightly pointed out that this discussion would be more appropriate for another forum, so I will be re-posting it there.  Please disregard the post.  Thank you.]

I'm curious -- how does your table handle the "vehicles for vehicles/bases" rules when designing bases or vehicles?

Some thoughts...

At one end of the spectrum, "The Ultimate Vehicle" includes an example of an elevator on p. 167 as a vehicle.  This seems unnecessary to me: surely an elevator or a turbolift can be considered "everyvehicle/everybase" equipment? 

As a more central position, that same book describes defining missiles as vehicles, and gives examples of various types of munitions-as-vehicles on pp 130-133.  These would in turn be carried by a larger vehicle.

At the other end of the spectrum, we get into something that would be permitted under the rules but could become abusive, IMO: having these secondary vehicles be fully-functional vehicles in their own right.  So you might end up with something like Battlestar Galactica, which served as a carrier for quite a few Viper fighters.  This would mean you could purchase the Galactica at 1/5 cost, since it is a vehicle... then have Galactica "buy herself" one or more Vipers, again at 1/5 cost, which means whoever built Galactica is actually paying only 1/25 cost for the Vipers. 

Vipers Sale, 96% off, today only!  ;-)

But a Viper isn't intrinsically tied to Galactica, you say?

I agree.  A missile isn't intrinsically tied to the vehicle that launches it, either.  A lifeboat also isn't intrinsically tied to the vessel that carries it, yet that "...is perhaps the best example..." according to "The Ultimate Vehicle" p. 166.

Let's scale up.  Enterprise-D with her separate saucer section.  Wouldn't this sort of arrangement let you put all of your "expensive" items into the "subordinate" vehicle and get your Galaxy-class cruiser much more cheaply?

Or consider any deep space vessel with all those systems that have to be duplicated for close-proximity and mega-range use -- Radar, HRRP, weapons, scanners, and/or whatever else you want to equip your ship with.  Why not put the proximity versions on board your "primary" vessel, and the mega-scale/mega-range versions onto a secondary hull?  The two can travel together for zipping over to the Talos system, but the secondary hull would handle subspace communications back to Earth, keeping an eye on that unstable star in the next solar system, etc. while the primary hull is orbiting the planet Talos IV and doing detailed sensor studies of the planet, or even making a landing if it is called for.  Even if you split your point costs right down the middle between the two hulls, you're still getting your ship at a 40% discount vs buying it as one ship.

How do you guys handle this at your tables?  Is there anything in RAW that would prevent the sort of "ship discounts" I've mentioned here?

Thanks, and have a great day!

Edited April 18, 2023 by cbullard

[archer]

I think you missed a step or two there.

 

First you have to buy your butler as a Follower.

 

Then the butler buys the Galactica, then the Galactica buys its Vipers, then the Vipers buy their pilots as followers.

[LoneWolf]

Considering you can buy another battle star for 5 points, I don’t have a problem with purchasing fighters cheap.   Star Hero is normally a heroic game so characters usually purchase equipment including ships with cash instead of points.   So, how you build a vehicle or base really does not matter that much.

 

Missile bought as vehicles are usually sophisticated devices with lots of capabilities that go way beyond fire and forget.  They often have computer guidance systems that are able to evade anti-aircraft defenses.   They can often navigate to avoid defenses or to get a better approach to strike.  There is no reason you cannot have both in your campaign.  We have both in real life now.  

 

Often the purpose of writing up a device as a vehicle to define how they work in the game.   
 

Edited April 17, 2023 by LoneWolf

[cbullard]

> "Star Hero is normally a heroic game so characters usually purchase equipment including ships with cash instead of points.   So, how you build a vehicle or base really does not matter that much."

That is true, and an aspect I had not considered.  Thank you for the reminder.

I suppose my question would be more appropriate to one of the superheroic game forums.  I was thinking in terms of the "general setting" (i.e. scifi, space travel, etc) and failed to take the "power level" into consideration when I posted the question to this group.  

Again, thank you for reminding me, and I will move the post to another group.

Have a great day!

[DeleteThisAccount]

Surely, even if it is meant to be a heroic game, if you could get that Battlestar "cheaper" by getting it as an "iconic" thing (and being the guy who owns an entire private starship, built for war, complete with fleet of fighters, seems fair to be considered pretty iconic) with a few points instead of equipment, bought with cash from wealth that you'd need to have enough points in that it becomes more costly for the points to get enough cash...

You'd still want to just buy things like that with points. Especially as it makes your private personal Battlestar into a much more protected part of your PC, having some assurance that even if it is destroyed, you'll get it back or be able to find another to replace it.