Hello,
I have been playing around with the idea of a cruiser sized ship with
Tug/Tender ability to carry 4 Mass 10 subcraft (non-FTL fast Gunships).
Inspired by the old Traveller Battleriders, Battletech Assault Dropships, and
the Evil Empire Tau which appears to use the same idea.
My question has to with when these subcraft jump from system to system.
Are
they attached to the tender by "jump collars - ala Battletech" or just
within the expand field?
Following up this if "on Jump Collars" which can allow access from
Gunship to Cruiser should there Mass cost for this, or is it covered in the
added
Tug/Tender mass? And if the the ship enters combat with Gunships
attached, how fast can U deattach?
Thanks for the help and comments
Have a Good One, DOC Agren    (Lurker on the Digest)
***
My question has to with when these subcraft jump from system to system.
Are they attached to the tender by "jump collars - ala Battletech" or
just within the expand field?
***
I don't recall a particular answer coming out of the discussions of this in
the past. I always assumed they were encased with the warp 'circuitry', and
actually internal to the tender. Others thought 'collar' which allowed fast
drops, and discounted my images of jumping tenders while their carries were
stillin the process of being detached. Don't think anybody suggested
'unattached'. Though, as I said, the collar/attachments were generally
seen as small encumbrance.
I do know most of the cost analysis I've seen suggested you didn't gain a lot
by using a battlerider scheme, and a strong argument could be made to keep the
danger to the tender low.
Remember, it's FT, and you SHOULD have latitude in interpretation of how it
works, with an eye to adjusting the point costs.
OO?
The_Beast
Having the books on hand for my dragon/space sea-life info.... on Page 8
of FB1, it specifically mentions extending the field around other ships and
that the FTL drives are bigger... just a straight interpretation I'd say this
means that they literally extend the FTL field around another ship like how
it's mentioned once or twice in a few star trek episodes... and in Halo 2 a
similar method is used when an earth warvessel flies close enough to a
covenant warship so that it gets caught in the FTL field.... the wording seems
to indicate that the drive's output is what is enhanced not any kind of
additional structure... after all... if it was something that required
additional structure, why not just build a bigger ship with really large
hanger
bays...?
Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:*** My question has to with when these
subcraft jump from system to system.
Are they attached to the tender by "jump collars - ala Battletech" or
just within the expand field?
***
I don't recall a particular answer coming out of the discussions of this in
the past. I always assumed they were encased with the warp 'circuitry', and
actually internal to the tender. Others thought 'collar' which allowed fast
drops, and discounted my images of jumping tenders while their carries were
stillin the process of being detached. Don't think anybody suggested
'unattached'. Though, as I said, the collar/attachments were generally
seen as small encumbrance.
I do know most of the cost analysis I've seen suggested you didn't gain a lot
by using a battlerider scheme, and a strong argument could be made to keep the
danger to the tender low.
Remember, it's FT, and you SHOULD have latitude in interpretation of how it
works, with an eye to adjusting the point costs.
OO?
The_Beast
> My question has to with when these subcraft jump from system to
or just
> within the expand field?
Yes. Whatever you want in your universe.
> Having the books on hand for my dragon/space sea-life info.... on Page
Whoops, forgot to check FB1...
> it specifically mentions extending the field around other ships and
***snip***
> if it was something that required additional structure, why not just
Actually, it differentiates between tugs and tenders. Battle riders are
normally thought to use tenders, and FB1 sez 'any ship can be made into a
TENDER by having internal bay space allocated to carry other ships'. On the
other hand, TUGS have to have hugely increased FTL systems.
What is the difference in effect between a tender and a tug? Not at all clear
from the rules; ships tend to be tendered to battle, and tugged away
from...
And then we get into some parts of 'what is hull' and 'does it mean the
same as volume' and other philosophical questions... ;->=
> Yes. Whatever you want in your universe.
Well, that was my answer 'sort of', but as we've saddled the lovely simple
system with a point structure, I suppose we should think how it is adapted to
those differing universes.
The_Beast
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 09:39:15AM -0600, Doug Evans wrote:
> Actually, it differentiates between tugs and tenders. Battle riders are
The approach I have taken is that a tender is a ship with hangar bays; the
hull is made larger to accommodate them, and the FTL drive is correspondingly
larger to account for the increased ship mass.
A tug could either use a hard connection (as in Battletech) or "extend the
jump field". My preference is for the former, since it tends to downplay the
possibility of the jump field as a weapon; it also implies that a tug could
move ships around in normal space if necessary, which seems to me a good idea.
(Of course, one needs to recalculate available thrust on the basis of the
extra mass being hauled.)
But one could certainly argue either way.
R
Even though I am the one who referenced the fleet book, mainly cause I
remembered exactly what was being referred to... I would say Laserlight has
the best answer to the question.... afterall... if we're going to be be
sticklers for the rules... perhaps we ahould all break out our
coats...
Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:> My question has to with when these
subcraft jump from system to system.
> Are they attached to the tender by "jump collars - ala Battletech"
or just
> within the expand field?
Yes. Whatever you want in your universe.
based on real world examples as a basis, the tender is a ship that
carries extra supplies - generlly ammunition and repari parts, armour
plating, structural rienforcment materials -and can do battle damage
repair (limitedly) on another ship and generally rearm them alas the missile
using ships.
The tug generally tows other ships or in the FT example STL barges. I in fgact
had most of my civilian commerce based on the use of STL barges and used tugs
to m ove them from system to system. Considering the campiagn used travel time
from FTL 'jump points' to planetside was a matter of days, It was more
feasible to have barges waiting at the Jump point than for a FTL freighter to
go from planet to jump point to planetside.
Just my thoughts.
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 09:39:15AM -0600, Doug Evans wrote:
> Actually, it differentiates between tugs and tenders. Battle riders are
The approach I have taken is that a tender is a ship with hangar bays; the
hull is made larger to accommodate them, and the FTL drive is correspondingly
larger to account for the increased ship mass.
A tug could either use a hard connection (as in Battletech) or "extend the
jump field". My preference is for the former, since it tends to downplay the
possibility of the jump field as a weapon; it also implies that a tug could
move ships around in normal space if necessary, which seems to me a good idea.
(Of course, one needs to recalculate available thrust on the basis of the
extra mass being hauled.)
But one could certainly argue either way.
R
> DOC Agren wrote:
> I have been playing around with the idea of a cruiser sized ship with
It is entirely up to you. Whatever "attachment" your background prescribes
is assumed to be included in the extra Mass of the tug drive - that's
why it is twice as large as a normal FTL drive.
> And if the the ship enters combat with Gunships attached, how fast can
One full turn, during which neither ship (or ships, if more than one ship is
launching from the tug simultaneously) can manoeuvre at all. Whether this
delay is caused by the time it takes to detach the physical grapples holding
the ship, or because the ships need that long to move far enough
apart using manoeuvring thrusters alone to be able to light up their main
drives without incinerating each other, or some other reason entirely is
again up to what you think fits your background best.
A launched ship "inherits" the course and speed of the tug. There should
also be an option for "scrambling" towed ships much like you can "scramble"
fighters in an emergency, but the rules for that haven't been worked out yet.
Tenders use the same launch rule as tugs do.
(Laserlight - remember what I said a couple weeks back about putting
revised tug rules on the IF beta page...? <g>)
***
> Doug Evans wrote:
> I do know most of the cost analysis I've seen suggested you didn't
Correct. There's a tentative solution for this, but we're not yet sure that it
won't screw something else up instead.
***
> Rrok Anroll wrote:
> Having the books on hand for my dragon/space sea-life info.... on Page
In the *GZGverse*, yes. If you don't play in the GZGverse, none of the
GZGverse PSB applies.
> after all... if it was something that required additional structure,
Probably because internal hangar bays would require a much, much, MUCH larger
(and correspondingly more expensive) ship than external cradles...
***
> Doug Evans wrote:
> What is the difference in effect between a tender and a tug?
In the FT rules, "tender" refers to a ship with internal space ship docking
bays (as opposed to internal fighter/small craft bays, which makes the
ship a "carrier" instead) while "tug" refers to a ship with a tug FTL drive.
Regards,
> I have been playing around with the idea of a cruiser sized ship with
And the Islamic Federation, which used to use this idea for ash Shaulah
strikeboats.
OO