A while back I brought up the issue of "Cutters", which in my gaming setting
will be non-FTL ships used for system patrol & defense. One of the
things
that came up was the fact that Non-FTL ships have more free space for
armor
and weapons. While I would not recommend this as a cure-all for the
dilemma, I think I've found a ***[SETTING SPECIFIC]*** (disclaimer)
flavor-based house rule that helps mitigate this imbalance, and will fit
in
well with the concept behind the campaign/setting.
Basically, I will require any ship designed without FTL to be at LEAST
partially streamlined. The background justification will be that since these
ships are often assigned to backworld systems, where they will have less
orbital infrastructure and interface support, they need to be capable of
planetary landing in case of the need for police action, repairs, etc.
It's shaky, but it keeps Non-FTL ships from needing a separate pricing
structure in points cost (Since streamlining takes up as much or more
capacity as FTL, and has a limited level of in-game usefulness, just
like
FTL).
Comments?
2B^2
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> A while back I brought up the issue of "Cutters", which in my gaming
Once the mass cost of FTL went down to 10%, from 25%, of the ship, the impetus
to have tugs drag in non-FTL ships waned. In FT2, ships could only use
half of
> Richard Bell wrote:
> Once the mass cost of FTL went down to 10%, from 25%, of the ship, the
> half of
Kinda. Several respected list members pointed out to me that since FTL
costs a % of a ship's mass, it still leaves a Non-FTL ship with free
mass to add more weaponry. So while FB1 addressed the imbalance, they asserted
that one still existed.
Examples (Simplistic for facility. I am not proposing either as an operational
design:
Mass 40
FTL version:
Thrust 6, 12 Mass
FTL +4 Mass
=16 Mass
Leaving 24 mass for Hull, Weapons, Etc.
Non-FTL Version:
Thrust 6, 12 Mass
Leaving 28 Mass for Hull, Weapons, Etc. (a substantial amount for that size
ship)
By requiring at least partial streamlining on Non-FTL for my background:
Partial SL, 4 Mass
Thrust 6, +12 Mass
=16 Mass
Leaving 14 Mass (Same as an FTL ship)
It at least partially addresses the difference.
2B^2
While I like the logic of partial to full streamlining on SD (System
defense) boats [i.e., non-FTL] I think that a SD probably should carry
more weapons since it is a more specialized ship incapable of out of system
actions and only capable of responding to FTL incursions (who can run away and
come back next week somewhere else in the target system.)
In one off scenarios SD ships are stronger but in a multiple system scenario
like in the books (MT? FB1?) they are incapable of moving between threatened
systems. An operational or even strategic draw back.
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:18:07 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
*SNIP*
> In one off scenarios SD ships are stronger but in a multiple system
All of these are very valid points, and ones I definitely want to take into
consideration. There are a couple of background-flavor specific issues
that mitigate this. For one thing, System Patrol Cutters will not be quite as
specialized as System Defense Monitors. They'll be part defense, part law
enforcement. Because of this, they will be a little more generalized, and thus
need the atmospheric capability. Maybe I'll broaden it a bit, and
allow non-streamlined ships ONLY if they also have a small craft bay.
This
doesn't balance them vs. FTL in one-offs as much as the streamlining
rule would, but it helps. In campaign play, it can be assumed that any FTL
raiders that start pulling hit and run too often will draw the attention of
the FTL navy. If a player's playing a minor power with no FTL, I will probably
relax the rule for him.
2B^2