From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:37:48 -0600
Subject: [Long] Re: [OFFICIAL] Freighters/Merchants question....
Ok, started this earlier, put it in draft queue, and it's been 'like Topsy'. As far as disperse forms, including 'string' ships, there's room for all possibilities. If you're not worried about tight manuevers, mostly the concern of military and ships working through cluttered areas, such as asteroids, dense manufacturing space, etc., swinging a string around to apply breaking pressure for the arrival might be ok. I see someone came up with a ship that's the Valley Forge, but in keeping with my idea of more densely populated backbone. We may be somewhat limited as to how much variety Jon can squeeze into his line, but shouldn't be with our imagination. > Personally, I think that freighters should be massive; they have to be There's been some discussion that small, rare, specialized cargoes might be more lucrative than regular bulk, or dispersion of cargoes to outlying regions would require smaller delivery systems. Also, you can argue that FTL, in some universes, increases in cost exponentially with size. I think there's 'room' for huge super-cargo ships, and scrabbling private-morgaged-to-the-eyeballs concerns. My own post-corporate-wars Texaco Free Traders inherited (plundered and escaped with) ships either built from huge bulk fuel (Hsub3?) carriers, or the engineering sections to be 'flown on site' to be finished where the fuel is gathered. For anybody interested, the 'capitals' are built from aircraft model drop tanks, w/ the pylons acting as 'sails', formerly all crew areas, now command. The largest ships are cobbled together, with some pylons used as connectors, giving you, as I described in 2001: *** My Texaco (TFNS) super-carriers, yet to be assembled, are a little over four inches, and in three equal, large pods. However, my fluff is that they are converted merchant hulls tied together, light and fragile and BIG. *** The engineering sections were referred in 2001 to as: *** As an aside, I'm claiming the AMT/Ertl Droid Fighters for Texaco Freetrade zone Naval Service Deep Space Flotillas, not that that stops anybody from other uses. ;->= *** If you think of the wing pods as sections from the skin of the drop tanks, you can imagine them as the pumps and other fuel handling machinery, and thrust and FTL engines, transported to where the relatively simple tank sections would be manufactured and added. These without added tank sections would be all engine and machinery; I figured they'd be fast, and the corp-heads would claim that the equipment could be used to power weapons. 'No really, the class 4 beams were created out of molecular separation units and standard APU's. Would we lie?' To finish out the units, I included repair and replenishment ships from the central parts of the droid fighters. Really crappy picture: http://dje.nebraska.edu/FRRD_kitchen_adjusted.jpg This particular build is too fragile for play or transport; in a game, I'd use one with the frame collapsed, and the upper structure flush with the ship. I just liked it as proof-of-concept. Oh, yeah, don't ask for stats; every set I've tried is just embarassing... > I also like the modular look, so long as it's done right. I don't too much wasted space. I always assumed that the Valley Forge could have had more and better cargo pods crammed along the backbone. Space is never wasted; space is big. Really big. So big that... Oops, never mind. However, that's quibbling; manufactured material in the framework IS wasted. The_Beast