FT: % or Fixed Mass Screens etc? The Case for the Defence

Many thanks for answering my worries about screens and armour.

In defence of streamlining costing mass. Streamlining involves a lot of
additional mass, turning a box or barrel shaped hull into something at least
slightly stramlined is going to add mass to the hull. Then adding thrusters,
undercarrige and all the 'airplane bits' is going to add more. A lot probably
depends on your own image of stramlining, is a bit rounded good enough or must
it be airframe? I always assumed that fully stramlined was airframe. I should
go back to Fire, Fusion and Steam or GURPS Vehicles and check their numbers
for stramlining. In our campaign game I was fighting a desparate rearguard
action against

ships being built anywhere but orbital shipyards, the idea of hordes of little
ships lifting off from any planet really bothered me. Again this was caused by
different perceptions, mine were earth based, late 19th or

early 20th century. You need a lot of industrial infrastructure to build

warships. The smaller planets were like Africa or South America, with no

industry to speak of, certainly nothing capable of building a starship.

Don't worry about the big guns, I was just extrapolating the curve a little
too far... I am very glad to hear that penetration be become a factor.

Again many thanks, MRB