Actually, if you''re talking Engine as in the device that moves the ship forward, just place it in an accessible and logical location, like the back of the ship. If it''s a propellant based system(chemical, fission, fusion, and antimatter are all propellant based, while something like gravitational or warp propulsion is not), that would seem logical to the player. Replacing an engine would then be fairly easy. Just break the welds that hold the engine to the rest of the ship(which needn''t be that strong, just vibration resistant because the engine would push itself towards the ship, not away from it)

If, however, you mean some kind of integrated powerplant/engine like most theoretical engine designs, then you''ll need to consider it like the nuclear plant of a submarine. Taking one out and putting a new one in just isn''t feasible. Hull integrity in all directions is just too important to allow someone to tear into it. You''d need to give it a whole new hull, too, which is essentially the same as building a new ship. But, upgrading rarely requires largescale replacement. Most changes are evolutionary instead of revolutionary. For evolutionary changes, you''d only need to change the parts that change in the improvement.

What do you do with the revolutionary changes? Well, you''re not likely to retrofit a prop with a ramjet, nor are you likely to succeed trying to retrofit an old battleship with a nuclear powerplant. Most games abstract away the concept of scrapping a ship and recycling its components in a new ship. I gather from your post that you can''t do that.

If it''s a civilian ship, make it modular. That makes it easier to manufacture and thus cheaper. It also makes it easier to upgrade.(if it''s military, well, modularity reduces survivability.)

There are some things you can do and some that don''t make much sense. Upgrading from fossil fuel to nuclear or something as drastic won''t work. Upgrading from a meter diameter to 10 meter diameter nozzle isn''t going to work.(modularity could possibly help--bend the hull outward and alter their relative distances from one another) Upgrading from 2 fusion reactors to 5 isn''t going to work. Upgrading from Super Mega Cool Phusion |2ea|<+or mk.7 to SMCPR mk.8 most likely would. And product names in the future will be in l337 Maybe even AOL/Time Warner Mega Super Awesome Phusion to Microsoft Fusion 2895 ZP would work, but given Microsoft''s history with interoperability, I doubt it

If your game is based on the prospect of owning one ship and upgrading indefinately, perhaps you should make everything completely modular. The crew area likely would never need to be upgraded. Separate the crew from the engine(have them use humanoid repairbots or something) and pretty much everything except the bridge. The crew area would then be the only area that needs to be airtight(perhaps a cargo hold as well?), so give it very heavy armor and radiation shielding and simply clothe the rest of it sheets of anything from aluminum to nylon to clay. All the rest of the ship needs is a)attachment to the other parts b)protection from external projectiles and c)protection from dust. A could be accomplished using scaffolding, b could be accomplished by using deflector shields, and c could be accomplished using tied together T-shirts or bubblegum that''s lost its flavor.(makes for some interesting scenarios involving makeshift repairs to a hull-breach. "Well, bob, we''ve got another hull breach.", "My gum''s lost its flavor, so use this." "Umm, thanks.". I''m sure there''s a porno somewhere that covers the other material

In my game, players can own multiple ships, so while one of them is being upgraded or retrofitted, player can use another.

You guys gave me some good ideas, here's what I'm gonna do:

I'll have 2 classes of ships:

Modular design.
__ Advantages: cheaper to mass produce. Easier to upgrade and retrofit.
__ Disadvantages: less hull integrity. They don't look very stylish. heh

Holistic design.
__ Advantages: greater hull integrity. More efficient use of space - more compact. Designs look stylish.
__ Disadvantages: harder to upgrade and almost impossible to retrofit.

I will have several technological "threads" for each equipment. This would govern whether equipment can be upgraded or whether it needs to be retrofitted. So if the ship's current equipment belongs to the same tech thread as the desired equipment, then it can be upgraded, otherwise it has to be retrofitted.

Difference between upgrading and retrofitting: upgrading is much cheaper and faster, plus retrofitting is not always possible.

Then, I will rank all existing types of equipment by the difficulty of retrofitting it.

I will rank each technological thread by the difficulty of upgrading it.

All equipment is placed in designated compartments within a ship. Each compartment will be rated on difficulty of upgrading and retrofitting equipment inside. Rating will be based on proximity to surface of the ship. So if some compartment is right next to surface of the ship, then it's relatively easy to retrofit, if it's buried inside then it's very hard to retrofit.

I will have a formula that calculates cost and time of customizing equipment. It will be based on all factors listed above.

[edited by - berserk on April 2, 2002 1:10:11 PM]

Modular design components should be more expensive as well. so an equivalent Wholistic ship should cost almost half what a modular version would, but the modular gives the option of strong customization.

Be sure to let your players keep modules in storage, so that depending on the requirements of an upcoming situation they can fit out their ships as needed.

Also, allow for semi-modular and demi-modular systems, where a ship can have modular life support or navigational/tactical computers, but not modular engines (as an example).

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

By "modular ship" I mean that the ship structure is composed on several pieces, making it relatively easy to take apart, which in turn makes various customization easier.

I''m not sure if it''s a good idea to make modular ships more expensive than holistic ones (yes, that''s the correct spelling).

The reason is that holistic ships offer greater structural integrity and more compact design. This gives them the edge in combat. And for player, combat advantages are very important.

Overall, I''ll try to balance both ship design types, so about half the people pick each design.

Sounds like a great idea. I posed a similar one involving 1st person 3d internally rendered ships.. So in that vain, and in helping to answer your question.. Will players in this game be able to be in the ship, and move around freely as the ship flys and fights in space? Is this a fully 3d game?... So far im gathering yes.

If so, good luck, as far as I know thats never been even close to done.

If so, and to your question, I think you should think Star Trek universe.. where Transporters, and matter replicaters exist. In this way, retro-fitting is quite simple, since you could Transport the Warp engines from out of the ship. However, if you wanted something to look more mechanical and "cool" looking, I believe that modularity is the answer, and you can see several examples where this works in the Star Trek universe: The Warp core can be ejected through tubes, and since the ship pretty much relies on energy shield for defence, the slightly narrow chance that an enemy torpedo or energy blast could penetrate down this narrow ejection shaft and strait to the core is slim to none, and enemies would best not put themselves at great risk to make such a hail mary shot.

On the other hand, what are you retro fitting to ? what kind of engines do you have? are you using warp?