Dear Folks -

Jeff asked:
> Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see a definitive
>statement either way: when figuring the construction time for a ship,

[paraphrase: do I use "standard hull" times or "drive potential" times, or
both?]

You use one or the other, depending on whether you are using a standard or
custom hull.

"Construction Times: Time required for building any vessel depends primarily
on the hull. The drive potential table indicates construction time for each
tonnage of hull; any hull over the indicated tonnage requires the next
higher construction time. The standard hulls table gives shorter
construction times for those hulls; they are more familiar to the shipyard
and easier to build."
(Bk 2, p 12)

"The Hull:
[...]
The standard hulls table shows six standard hulls which are available at
reduced prices and construction times. Any other hull must be produced on a
custom basis at a cost of MCrO.1 per ton; minimum price MCr20. Construction
(or build) times for custom hulls are shown in the last column of the drive
potential table."
(Bk 2, p 13)

For example:
- if the design is based on a standard 100 ton hull, it will take 9 months
to build (Bk 2, STANDARD HULLS table, p 22)
- if the design is based on a custom 100 ton hull, it will take 10 months to
build (Bk 2, DRIVE POTENTIAL table, p 22)

FWIW, notice that this *replaces* the original 1977 rule, as quoted by Tom
Rux: "Standard designs take about one month less than the stated time." My
guess is that this rule was removed in favour of the definitive column in
the DRIVE POTENTIAL table. In this new column, for example, a custom 800 ton
hull takes 28 months vs 25 for the standard hull (3 months more). Stating it
explicitly in this column means you no longer have to guess.  ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson ..at.. Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw                    xxxxxx@pcug.org.au
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"