hi all!
I was thinking about FT construction rules for bases -- either fully
fabricated or constructed out of asteroids (kinda from my Starfire
experience). these would be installations to guard worlds, important
facilities, strategic points.
since they would need only station-keeping drives, bases should be able
to
use a larger percentage of their total space to weapons/defenses, say
75%.
so their advantages are more weapons, but no maneuver versus a mobile ship.
then there is the bases smaller cousin -- a weapons platform. maybe 1
space
is devoted to station-keeping drives, but the overall size is limited
before it drifts into a small base category. no idea yet what this limit might
be.
anyway, this is off-the-cuff. any ideas out there?
Dave
> On 3-Apr-02 at 09:02, David Reeves (davidar@nortelnetworks.com) wrote:
Just realize that even with good PDS's a small fleet with SMLs will eat a base
up. When we did our campaign all the bases ended up being fighter platforms.
> [quoted text omitted]
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:05:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net>
Subject: Re: [FT]: Base Construction
[snip]
Just realize that even with good PDS's a small fleet with SMLs will eat a base
up. When we did our campaign all the bases ended up being fighter platforms.
<<<<<<<<<<
which doesn't seem right to me. I would think bases could withstand more
punishment -- more PDS and armor. they should be able to dish out more
damage as well to toast some of those SML slingers....
Dave
> On 3-Apr-02 at 10:04, David Reeves (davidar@nortelnetworks.com) wrote:
SMLs which hit average 12.25 damage each. Against immobile targets
they _always_ hit. To play the odds and get a complete kill with
a PDS you need to fire 8 PDSs at each SML. If I'm doing a base
assault with FSE that base can expect 20-30 launchers on target.
That base needs 240 PDSs to handle that kind of force. I'll let someone else
tell you how many points get through even at that, my stastics aren't
currently up to it.
From: ~ On Behalf Of David Reeves
Sent: 03 April 2002 15:01
Subject: [FT]: Base Construction
> I was thinking about FT construction rules for bases -- either
FT2 (and MT) have already been there. FT2 clearly limits systems
to 50% of total MASS (FT2 pg 27-28) though the 100 MASS limit does
NOT apply! However, since only drive costs are waived, building a large base
simply to soak up damage from an equivalent value of ships isn't really an
option unless the "one shield generator covers all" loophole [1] is worth more
than I think.
MT suggests the supership concept for bases, and also suggests breaking the
base up into separate entities. (MT pg 22.) These are intended to increase
playability, and do nothing to increase combat efficieny.
I can't find any mention of bases in FB1 [2]. I assume you just buy a hull and
leave out any drives. Although Roger's point is valid, I assume from your 75%
suggestion that you are thinking of FT2 where SMLs and SMRs do not exist.
Quite why bases are limited to 50% MASS for systems when non-FTL
vessels can use up to 75% is beyond me. If any one knows the reason why, I'd
be interested to hear.
Under FT2, how is the cost of a low-thrust drive for an escort or
a cruiser rounded? This determines whether the extra 25% MASS
available for systems on a non-FTL vessel makes bases a no-brainer;
instead of a base you have a fleet of defense boats who can scatter or be
loaded onto a tender.
MASS 16, THRUST-1 = 16 * 1 / 4 = 4 points, or is it 16 points?
Non-FTL vessel gains extra 25% of total MASS for systems
Value of extra hull = 16 * 2 * 25% = 8 points [3]
[1] since fixed by FB1, as was the need for the supership concept.
[2] any correction or reference to past discussions welcome.
[3] not that you get any extra damage points, though.
> Any ideas out there?
If a base is inside an asteriod or on the surface of a planet or a moon, much
of it can be buried beyond the reach of any FT weapon. However, most of what
we think of as systems have to be on or near the surface in order to work.
Deeply buried bases would be highly resistant to FB1 Core Systems damage. (pg
5)
Asteroids might be cheaper to mine than true hulls are to build; for that
matter a hull that isn't going anywhere can be lighter than one that is, not
that this is any use to us. A base on a planet could just consist of a
handfull of cargo modules landed by interface craft. "The generator's under
this net, the batteries are on the end of that cable and we have maser links
to the fire controls up in that mountain range." Very cheap.
I'd moderate asteroids by saying you can't strap drives onto them a la PX
Empress Troyhune [4] and go scooting around your local solar system. If the
whole thing doesn't end up as gravel it will tumble each time the drive is
applied.
I don't think installations on the surface of an asteroid would be as easy to
target (or even detect at a distance) as an equivalent vessel would be.
Detecting through an atmosphere would be even more difficult, though this cuts
both ways.
Don't forget the stalwart of any static defence: the mine. I think mines [FT2
pg 18] get a very raw deal; they should be a serious danger to capital
vessels, but these are very unlikely to even force a threshold check on an
escort. I've umpired mines by setting out a minefield then assigning SMR
attacks based on the number of MU the unlucky vessel has travelled through the
field; there are an unlimited number of mines and they cannot be cleared
during the course of a battle.
[4] agility 6?? Supplement 9 for the Travellers out there.
> Roger Books wrote:
> SMLs which hit average 12.25 damage each. Against immobile targets
I don't have the exact average (and don't have time to calculate it), but you
can expect on average ~1 point per SM salvo to get through (...most of it from
the one salvo your massed PDSs completely failed to miss, of course
:-/ ).
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]