The way I understand Tug rules is that there's no extra cost for an FTL
tug capbility per-se, but you pay mass and cost for the mass you want to
carry - 20% of the carried mass..
Does this mean I can build a ship that is basicaly rickety tin-can FTL
engine with clamps for fighters with the cost of 5 mass and 15 points? Mass=5,
Weak Hull (1 mass)
Thrust 9 (2 mass) FTL (Tug) (1 mass) Capacity 6 (1 mass)
If tug cap is always rounded up, them the clamps are 2 mass and engines are 1
mass for 5 thust
Add to that a standard flight of fighters and we get a (possibly one shot) FTL
fighter group for 33 points. Anyone want to take a Richtenhoff against ten of
these things? Even 5? Either a) I've got a major gap in my understanding of
tugs, or b) something's broken. Most likely A. Could someone set me straight?
Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Well, here's the rub - what you designed is valid by the rules, but
Or the fighters' crews die in Jump.....
> Also, tugs may not be able to use their own drives to tow the fighters
I assume these were the clamps referred to.
> So while it is strictly by the book, there are complications that make
I made up a Mobile Fleet Repair Dock using these rules for my version of the
NI capable of working on a mass 110 battlecruiser, and towing it in both Jump
and realspace (actually, the MFRD could tow probably two of these things, but
couldn't jump that heavily loaded). That
wasn't too bad for practicality - pretty fast in normal space when no
vessel was under work, otherwise speed 1. And I loaded up with extra BPs
(which I called Repair Parties). This ship struck me as entirely too useful to
any fleet on the move that didn't want to scrap every ship with major damage.
As for Noam's Jump Carrier, the only place I can see it used (assuming the
fighter LS endurance lets the Pilots survive jump)
would be for a final assault jump into a contested system - where
you'd had a fleet marshalling point with freighters full of fighters to load a
wave or two of these "Jump Ferries" with fighters and crews
in preparation for an all-out assault. But this would happen rarely,
and even then an ambush against an unready force would be
devastating. And you'd only want this as a "stiffener" to a fleet -
to add more firepower in the early stage of a big assault. You'd have to win
or your fighters would probably be abandoned. And Pilots are not cheap enough
to just be thrown away. So, I don't see this as a commonly used design.
Just my 0.02. If the "construction" rules don't prohibit a design, we still
have to assess its strategic use and the complexities of that
issue - that explain why we see a lot less "single purpose" killer
ships in the FB - the ships are all expected to do various types of
duties for which a single purpose ship is poorly designed.
Tom.
/************************************************
[quoted original message omitted]
> The way I understand Tug rules is that there's no extra cost for an FTL
That much is true
> Does this mean I can build a ship that is basicaly rickety tin-can FTL
Technically, yes, but there are some caveats---See below
> Mass=5,
I don't think thrust 9 is allowed for normal ships, but that size drive would
support that level of performance. Of course, when you add the fighters (mass
6) that drops to Thrust 3.
> If tug cap is always rounded up, them the clamps are 2 mass and engines
Huh? I didn't follow this one
> Add to that a standard flight of fighters and we get a (possibly one
Could
> someone set me straight?
Well, here's the rub - what you designed is valid by the rules, but not
practical by the text. The average FTL transit consists of a series of jumps,
with delays of 6+ hours between them, while "on average, naval vessels
on most missions will make no more than one jump per day". The tug has no
provisions for the fighter crew, or refueling, or rearming. So essentially the
pilots are stuck in their fighters for the entire duration. They must rely on
the Life support ability of said fighters. They have at most their initial
endurance of
6 (or 9 if long-range) but I would hotly contend that extended
deep-space travel
burns endurance. And once there, they use it up and are screwed.
Also, tugs may not be able to use their own drives to tow the fighters in
realspace (read FB p8 - "designed to tow other ships through jump by
extendind their jumpfield around them". So you need mechanical linakge, or
else the fighters use their own drives for all maneuvering.
So while it is strictly by the book, there are complications that make this
design (as it stands) impractical for anything but moving fighters around
behind the lines. It could be an interesting scenario for this transportation
group to be attacked, but as far as normal play, I don't think so.
> Mass=5,
Yes it is, per Jon/GZG. I checked before I built the Night Music
(Thrust
13) class, a few months ago. Eggshell Hull + Thrust 18 is the max, as
it takes 100% of the hull...unless you work on the rounding and squeeze in a
point or so of mass for something useful. I'd build an Express Courier like
that, but X ships of speed Y are less efficient than 2X at Y/2, if you
assume constant acceleration to midpoint and constant decceleration
thereafter.
> Well, here's the rub - what you designed is valid by the rules, but not
Of course, you could put some troop cabins in. Keep the pilots inside until
launch time. Of course, you couldn't recover them, but given the survival rate
of fighters, that may not be an issue (or maybe you include a real
carrier or two to recover the survivors, re-arm fighters).
> Jared E Noble wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Well, here's the rub - what you designed is valid by the rules, but
XXX I must disagree here, this tug is a special purpose ship and therefore
would provide access to the hull for the fighter pilots. The tug would
also provide fuel/energy to the fighters thru carry frame connections
(or thru a dedicated connection). Even the FB rules state that the fighter
pilots are the only ones added to the crew of a carrier when the fighters
are added. The differance between the tug and a carrier is simple, no
repairs can be conducted or spares for the fighters are carried on the tug.
Other than pilot, fuel and energy for the weapons nothing can be added
or removed from the fighter. This is the reason that no special attack
type fighters can be carried on the tug. (Well, from my point of view.) JTL
XXX
> Also, tugs may not be able to use their own drives to tow the fighters
XXX
Tug sub-light drives are designed to operate at the loaded mass of
the tug.
Towing the cargo should not be a problem. JTL
XXX
...Snip...JTL
***
therefore would provide access to the hull for the fighter pilots
***
And, I could easily argue that the 'clamps', which I can't find in the rules,
the extra passages in the ship, the 'cover' to attach to the cockpit, the
special
fittings for the passing gas ( ;->= ) and other supplies to the fighter,
the undocking mechanism to assure no collision before the fighter can deploy,
would add up to a significant percentage of a fighter bay mass.
And, I hope I will FINALLY get this to keep from wrapping weirdly!
If you want to do tugs for fighters which are not ships, do so, but I think
they are strictly home brew, and up to you.
The_Beast
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> The_Beast
Well if you don't like all the extras, just use a standard FTL freighter
with a pressurized cargo bay with a hatch. I just happen to like the
parasite fighter concept. (like Bab 5 did with the Black Omega squadron.)
You were close, only a couple odd wraps.
Bye for now,
In a message dated 99-02-24 18:57:14 EST, you write:
<< Yes it is, per Jon/GZG. I checked before I built the Night Music
(Thrust
13) class, a few months ago. Eggshell Hull + Thrust 18 is the max, as
it takes 100% of the hull...unless you work on the rounding and squeeze in a
point or so of mass for something useful. I'd build an Express Courier like
that, but X ships of speed Y are less efficient than 2X at Y/2, if you
assume constant acceleration to midpoint and constant decceleration
thereafter. >> for a FTL CO type ship the max is thrust 16 (80%), fragile hull
(10%), FTL
(10%)
Size 8.
-Stephen
No you are correct on the design rules interpretation
> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
> >Does this mean I can build a ship that is basicaly rickety tin-can
as with several other apparent holes in the design system, it is indeed
possible to make optimised hard-hitting ships that are way too cheap,
but they always lose out at the operational level. without fighter bays, you
cannot refuel, rearm or repair your fighters, or put your pilots anywhere.
uou could, however, envisage the use of these fighter tugs in combination with
the ferry carriers we've discussed before. a bunch of ferry carriers,
basically eggshells with thrust 2 and huge numbers of fighters, would carry
your fighters around, and when you wanted to attack, you'd load up your tugs
and jump in. this is probably not much cheaper than ordinary carriers, and you
are at a severe disadvantage if your ferry fleet is attacked.
in a simple tactical game, of course, this never shows up; thus, i'd recommend
that there be an extra points cost for any fighters deployed
without fighter bays, to account for the rear-area ships. the cost of
one fighter bay (27 in FB?) per squadron deployed.
> Also, tugs may not be able to use their own drives to tow the fighters
well, forget about towing the fighters through realspace and just use the
jump-tug for moving them between star systems. in fact, if you were
moving things between two systems a lot, you could just slap a tug down
somewhere and have ships use it regularly. you could then get rid of drives,
and probably cut down on weapons, armour, hull, etc. relying on more mobile
ships to move and defend it (after all, you would be using it mostly in
friendly territory). if you built the tug big enough, it could move ships as
well as fighters.
i think such things are usually called "jump gates".
Tom
(After reading Jared's objections)
Maybe these 'fighter tugs' might represent a cheap enough design to solve the
problem of replacement fighter transport for carriers that was being discussed
a couple of months ago?
> Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> (After reading Jared's objections)
So how much space would a fighter in a transport require? How about mass 1 per
fighter instead of 1.5, but the caveate is that there are no launch
facilities, no pilot crew quarters, ammo' / fuel storage etc. The only
way to get the fighters off the ship is by flying them one at a time through
the
cargo bay doors or a direct transport-to-carrier cargo by whatever the
FT equivalent of an onboard crane is.
Assuming the above, how about this design:
Mass: 60 (pts 60) Hull Integrity 1: 6 (12) Thrust 2: 6 (12) FTL: 6 (12) 3xPDS:
3 (9) 1 FCS: 1 (4)
2 Class-1 : 2 (6)
36 crated fighters : 36 (-)
Cost: 115
V.cheap, enough fighters to replenish a Konstantin or an Ark Royal. Very
vulnerable, however... you need a good escort to defend a cargo like that.
This could produce some interesting scenarios in campaigns...
Reading the rules again you can't tow fighters with tugs as it says "ships"
and as we all know by previous ruling fighters are not classed as "ships".
> From Tugs and Tenders
TUGS, which are designed to "tow" other ships through Jump by extending their
Jumpfield around them
You'd have to use a Tender and this is I think the spirit of the rules in this
case.
The Thrust 9 FTL tender would cost you MASS 32 - 105 points to carry 6
standard fighters plus 18 points for the fighters, for a grand total of 123
points. Not so attractive.
JL:
***
Well if you don't like all the extras, just use a standard FTL freighter with
a pressurized cargo bay with a hatch. I just happen to like the parasite
fighter concept. (like Bab 5 did with the Black Omega squadron.)
***
At which point you've only moved all the 'stuff' I mentioned inside, and
requires WAY more space, and, and, OH I GIVE UP.
I'll forgo describing what it took to make CAM's in the Battle of the Atlantic
for one,
single-use Hurricane.
You win, do what you want with freighters, put guns of any size and ignore all
mass considerations while you're at it.
Jarrad:
***
Maybe these 'fighter tugs' might represent a cheap enough design to solve the
problem of replacement fighter transport for carriers that was being discussed
a couple of months ago?
***
That's what I would have said, though the fighters would have to be crated in
the freighter to fit into the the mass space of just the fighters, in any game
I'd play, and would require campaign time to move to a fighter bay on the
carrier to be prepped for use.
The_Beast