I D/L'ed and have been reading MT (thanks again!). I am particularly
interested in the FT/DS interface. But I have a small problem with the
rules for cargo: They seem a bit generous in cargo/mass. Per the
rules, a
fighter is mass 1 (mass 1.5/fighter for the fighter & it's bay). The
FT/DS
rules state that a FT fighter is fully acceptable as a DS fighter, which
means I must conclude that it's DS stats would include a size class between 1
and 7. But the rules for cargo state that 1 mass = 50 cargo points, and that
vehicles take up 4 CP per size class. That means a class 7 vehicle
takes up 28 CP, or.56 mass. seems a bit low for what it should take up. I
haven't begun to break down infantry yet. Does anyone have any better HR's for
this issue?
Thanks
2B^2
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:47 AM, Brian Bilderback
> [SMTP:bbilderback@hotmail.com] wrote:
> that vehicles take up 4 CP per size class. That means a class 7
I
> haven't begun to break down infantry yet. Does anyone have any better
Vehicles take up 1.5 times their own capacity, so a size 7 vehicle would
occupy 7*5*1.5 = 52.5 CS of cargo space. Note that this is combat ready
status. You can pack them in at the full 1 CP = 1 CS but you would need to
uncrate them & prep them on arrival. Infantry works out the same. 1 CS per man
for coldsleep, or 4 CS per man for single bunking (this is comparable to
Traveller space requirements as well!)
Some numbers were crunched on the list last year, and it worked out to
between 20-25 CS per mass under FTFB1&2.
ie: 1 CS = 4 tonne. Due to the maximum armour and weapons you can put on an
aerospace fighter in DS, fighters would normally be between size 3 and size 4.
*****
> Brendan Robertson wrote:
> Vehicles take up 1.5 times their own capacity, so a size 7 vehicle
I'm assuming this is a HR? Because that's not what MT states.
> Note that this is combat ready
How do you play this out in game play? A turn delay to ready them for
deployment?
> Infantry works out the same. 1 CS per man for coldsleep, or 4 CS per
The only problem I have with the CS/man is that DS uses elements whose #
of
men is nebulous, I'd prefer to come up with a CS/element rule.
> Some numbers were crunched on the list last year, and it worked out to
Is that still using the Class*5*1.5 CS cost above? If so, then it seems a
little TOO restrictive - a swing to the other end of the pendulum.
> Due to the maximum armour and weapons you can put on an aerospace
Makes sense.
2B^2
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:59 AM, Brian Bilderback
> [SMTP:bbilderback@hotmail.com] wrote:
Oops, I'm mixing up DS & SG rules. DS vehicles can carry other vehicles at 1.5
x capacity. It seemed simple to carry this across for rules consistancy.
> >Note that this is combat ready
> deployment?
More like a whole day's delay. There's unloading, unpacking, primary testing,
secondary testing, refeuling etc, etc, etc. It's not something you want to do
on a hot landing.
The reason for 1 mass = 25 CS is partly due to the change in FT construction.
It may seem restrictive, but when you use a 200 mass bulk freighter or a
military cargo ship, it still carries a lot of vehicles
(about 120 size 5 main battle tanks + crew). It just means a FT combat
capable starship can't carry ground vehicles efficiently.
*****
> Brendan Robertson wrote:
> Oops, I'm mixing up DS & SG rules. DS vehicles can carry other
Actually, DSII vehicles carry other vehicles at 8*the size Class of the
carried vehicle.
> More like a whole day's delay. There's unloading, unpacking, primary
OK
> The reason for 1 mass = 25 CS is partly due to the change in FT
Unless it's an assault carrier carrying a small elite strike force.
2B^2
> (mass 1.5/fighter for the fighter & it's bay).
[snip]
> But the rules for cargo state that 1 mass = 50 cargo points, and
The mass of 1.5 for the fighter and its bay includes all the support services,
fuel storage, magazines, flight ready rooms, flight and maintenance crew
quarters and so on....
Hope that helps Mike Elliott
************************************************************************
**
Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained
in
this e-mail. This e-mail is for the use only of the intended addressee.
If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for
delivering it to the intended addressee, you may not copy, forward, disclose
or otherwise use it or any part of it in any way whatsoever. To do so is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you receive this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender
immediately
by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
Bull Information Systems Limited may monitor the content of e-mails sent
and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures.
This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual
relationship between Bull Information Systems Limited and you.
Bull Information Systems Limited. Registered Office: Computer House, Great
West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9DH. Registered in England. Registration
Number: 2017873
Thank you.
> The only problem I have with the CS/man is that DS uses elements whose
Its not nebulous, the basic infantry element is 4 men, support elements are 2
or 3 men.
Hope that helps Mike
************************************************************************
**
Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained
in
this e-mail. This e-mail is for the use only of the intended addressee.
If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for
delivering it to the intended addressee, you may not copy, forward, disclose
or otherwise use it or any part of it in any way whatsoever. To do so is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you receive this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender
immediately
by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
Bull Information Systems Limited may monitor the content of e-mails sent
and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures.
This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual
relationship between Bull Information Systems Limited and you.
Bull Information Systems Limited. Registered Office: Computer House, Great
West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9DH. Registered in England. Registration
Number: 2017873
Thank you.
> Mike Elliott Wrote:
> >(mass 1.5/fighter for the fighter & it's bay).
Yes, but the mass of 1 is supposedly for the fighter ONLY - the rest is,
according to the writing, covered in the .5 - which means a fighter
alone is mass 1, and still big compared to the mass cost for a vehicle.
2B^2
> Mike Elliott Wrote:
> >The only problem I have with the CS/man is that DS uses elements
Kinda. The DS rules seemed to state that those numbers were an average, not a
set number, and that what really counts is the effectiveness of the element as
a whole. But it does give me a good guideline for setting up a HR for the
cargo mass of an element. Thanks.
2B^2
> 2B^2 wrote:
> >(mass 1.5/fighter for the fighter & it's bay).
You're reading things into the rules which aren't actually there. There are
two different Hangar Bay entries in the FB1 design table:
* One for small craft which say that the bay is 1.5xMASS of small craft
carried, and
* Another one for fighters, which only says that "all fighters require 1.5
MASS of hangar bay space per fighter" but doesn't say how big the fighter
itself is.
You have mixed the two up - the "mass of 1" comes from the Small Craft
entry, not from the Fighter entry. Fighters aren't the same thing as small
craft; a small craft bay can't service fighters, and a fighter bay can't
carry a small craft.
The total bay MASS needed to hold 1 MASS of small craft and minimal service
equipment and stores is equal to the MASS needed to hold 1 fighter plus large
amounts of service equipment and stores, but this doesn't mean that the
fighter is 1 MASS. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> You're reading things into the rules which aren't actually there.
No, I'm not.
*Snip*
> You have mixed the two up - the "mass of 1" comes from the Small Craft
Fleet Book 1, Page 8, Column 1, Last Paragraph: "Under the new construction
system any ship can be made into a TENDER by
having internal bay space allocated to carry other ships at the same rate as
for carrying ***_Fighters_*** and other small craft - ie: every 1.5
MASS used for Hangar bay space provides capacity for 1 MASS of carried
ship(s)."
Wow - how could I ever have read that to mean that the 9 mass for a
fighter bay meant that the 6 fighters themselves have a mass of 6, or 1 per
ship? What was I THINKING?
> The total bay MASS needed to hold 1 MASS of small craft and minimal
Small craft bays are also meant to recreate dropships/interface landers
-
hmmm.... minimal service equipment - why do you hate your gropos so that
you
would want them dead before they hit the ground? ;-)
but this doesn't mean
> that
See above. If 6 fighters have 6 mass, 1 fighter has 1 mass.
2B^2
> 2B^2 wrote:
> You're reading things into the rules which aren't actually there.
Yes, you are. Any evidence to the contrary is either a typo or an
illusion :-)
Thing is, Mike Elliott (who wrote the FT/DS interface rules in More
Thrust, and was more involved in the Fleet Books than I was) says that
fighters are smaller than 1 Mass. Last time I saw Jon T. express an opinion on
the
subject, he agreed with Mike (I'm afraid I don't have an on-line
reference for this, though). But if you want to bash your head bloody trying
to resolve a rules inconsistency which the author of half of the inconsistent
rule basically has told you to ignore, you're quite welcome to it <g>
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Yes, you are. Any evidence to the contrary is either a typo or an
Damned illusory typeface....
> Thing is, Mike Elliott (who wrote the FT/DS interface rules in More
If you think I should ignore it, I'll take that into consideration. My
objection was to your saying I had read more than was stated, since that IS
what was stated. If you want to say that what I read is errata, that's a
different matter altogether.
2B^2
> 2B^2 wrote:
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> objection was to your saying I had read more than was stated, since
A classic case of "the rules say what they say and mean what they mean".
The authors and proof-readers all knew what the rules were supposed to
say
and didn't see what they actually do say :-/
Later,