> The basic idea is to have a modular ship with an ftl core and non-ftl
I suspect the PSB is to make the FTL field extensible to another hull. I've
built most of the Islamic Federation's smaller ships to be non-FTL, but
it
really isn't efficient if you have to povide a tug--even a 10% Hull,
Main Drive 1 civilian tug. If you have a campaign, though, you can use 1 tug
and
keep ferrying non-FTL's with it, or you can go pick up ships which have
lost FTL (due to needle beams, for example).
> Laserlight wrote:
I've
> built most of the Islamic Federation's smaller ships to be non-FTL,
After some more thought I think we have a conflict here between a psb that
would work right for campaign games and one that would work for single
conflicts.
The basic role of a tug is transporting things via ftl that don't have an ftl
drive or that don't need one. When using one to get stuff to a battle you want
to be sure that either you'll definately win, or that the tug will be there
when you want to leave. Another use of a tug during a battle would be to get
something specific away from the target area. Another (obvious) observation is
that it is always cheaper not to have an ftl drive than to have one,
irrespective of the cost of such a drive.
I have probably read too much SF where ftl gets relatively cheaper the greater
the mass is that has to be transported (please don't ask me for a quote). This
could be represented by a log scale or something, or even by something simple
as a 5% cost for tugged mass instead of 20%.
In a campaign game this wouldn't matter. However, for a single conflict it
would be tempting to exploit this to make mass free for offensive weapons,
thus increasing the likelyhood of winning. The likelier the win is, the less
people would have to worry about the survival of the tug and possible hasty
exits. This would give single conflicts a more unnatural feel.
So, I can live with this. We can justify the 20% psb by either:
- needed to extend the ftl field to another hull(laserlight)
- 10% for the tugged mass, and 10% for clamping/connecting facilities
Still, it's a shame that a tug only gives cost savings in long term
campaign games, and not in short term mass/point costs.
Cheers,
Agreed. 10% mass that is freed up from not installing a FTL drive can easily
be used for:
- Level 2 Screens
- +2 MD
- Cloaking System
- Reflex Field
- Hull
- Other assorted offensive/defensive systems.
The main arguement (disagreement) that I hear when someone wants to send a
battlerider (nonFTL ships brought by a tug is that the tug should remain
untouchable, as it has dropped its ships and is hiding/running/FTLing.
And then they contend that either 1) The tug should not be counted for point
cost; 2) The tug should only represent 10% of the mass of the battleriders; or
3)
The tug cannot be counted for victory conditions (only the more efficient
battleriders).
The problem with #1 is that battleriders gain 10% free mass.
The problem with #2 is that the same factors that favor large ships come
into play and favor battleriders. That is larger ships take longer to reach
threshold checks and can bring more effective fire upon enemy ships
(concentrated fire can remove a smaller enemy ship before it can fire than the
same mass of smaller ships firing on the larger ship). In the same way
battleriders fleets concentrate the FTL mass of all the fleet into a
noncombatant ship. While this reduces the overall size of the fleet, it makes
each ship within the fleet more effective. Take a Maximilian BC for example.
The FTL version is mass 100. However, without FTL, you can fit the same hull,
engines and systems into a mass 87 ship. So you gain 13% instead of the
expected 10%. It does vary with ship size: the Van Tegethoff 200m ship gains
11% (178), the Huron 50m ship gains 14% (43m).
The problem with #3 is that the same as #2, that is the victory point force is
more efficient than a similar FTL force.
I, too, can live with 20% for tugs. It provides a more efficient fighting
force and provides benifits that normal FTL does not (i.e. can move objects
without having to fit them with FTL).
For a tournament or one-off that allows non-FTL ships, perhaps a 15%
penalty
should be applied to the non-FTL force?
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> In a campaign game this wouldn't matter. However, for a single
Brian Bell said:
> I, too, can live with 20% for tugs. It provides a more efficient
Oerjan suggested 10%, and that seems about right from the Islamic Fed battles
I've had. You gain a bit more mass than that by dropping your FTL but you lose
a few hull boxes, plus the option to FTL out any ships that are about to be
overwhelmed.
I don't suppose someone could take pity on those of us who missed the whole
FTL tug the first time around and re-post the basics?
The basics are: 1. Ships which don't have to pay for FTL have more space for
other
things--armor, weapons, main drive--than ships which do.
2. FTL tugs are comparatively expensive. If you have to have FTL to get to the
battle, it is more efficient to go ahead and put FTL in your ships rather than
use a tug (or set of tugs) with enough "lift" to get your whole squadron
there. 3. However, if you're in a campaign and aren't worried about strategic
mobility, you can build a few tugs to ferry all your non-FTL ships to
their destinations.
[quoted original message omitted]
To define a it:
A Tug is a ship that has an "overpowered FTL drives, capable of extending
their drive field around another ship and 'carrying' it through FTL space"
(FT p27). Or in other words a Tug can transport non-FTL ships through
jumpspace. FB1 (p8) indicates that Tugs have an FTL drive with a mass equal to
10% of
the Tug's mass + 20% the mass of the other ship(s) it can pull through
FTL space (paraphrased).
Another definition is also helpful. A Tender is a ship that has a Bay space
large enough to carry another (usually non-FTL) ship within it. Think of
the Star Destroyers that captured the Blockade Runner in the opening scenes of
Star Wars - A New Hope. FB1 (p8) indicates bay space is 1.5 x the mass
of the ship(s) it can hold.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
The Full Thrust Ship Registry: http://www.ftsr.org
-----
> -----Original Message-----
Ok. I feel really stupid now...
I have somehow missed the entire concept of tugs in FT being explained within
the rules. Probably a brain defect since I have wondered about the issue a
couple of times (being an old Traveller player and wondering about
the whole Battle-Rider/Battleship issue...)
Thank you very much for the page references, now I will go back,
re-read,
and ponder...
BTW: On first thought I think the costing per the rules works out fine in
campaign play.
Thanks again,
David
> -----Original Message-----