> Okay, a strange little question (from a strange little man) - Talking
Are you going to have 1 or more of these little carriers in every system?
That's going to be expensive, since most planetary systems will never see
combat. Where is the carrier going to be stationed? It may end up being on the
wrong side of the solar system to help. If it stays with whatever it's
supposed to be protecting then build a fighter base at that location instead.
It will also need escorts. More expense in systems that don't see combat.
I've tried to make the battle-rider concept (ala Traveller) work, but in
FT the 10% for an FTL drive is a very small price to pay for the
flexibility of star travel. Now if it required an extra 10-30% of the
ship's mass for FTL fuel then we're talking. But the design system makes all
that stuff extra outside the scope and we don't have to worry
about it. This is fine for some things. Star Trek-based designs
shouldn't have large fuel requirements, I don't think B5 or Star Wars ships
worry about it either. Of course, these are story driven universes,
not gear-head rpg universes (like Traveller <grin>). In a campaign
setting you could add an FTL fuel requirement (say 5% ship mass for x amount
of FTL distance) and let people design ships based on that, but that doesn't
apply to regular FT play and printed ships.
You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take that thinking
just a step or two further...
In the situation in which it was suggested, a _Major Power_ was
courting a system for whatever reason. If the Major Power thinks the
return on the investment for deploying a Non-FTL system defense ship
to give the "Natives" a warm fuzzy feeling, and thus winning them over to
"their side" then the Major Power will deploy those ships. Even if their not
going to see combat. It would depend on the system being rich or strategic in
some way.
Even a dirt-poor planet might find themselves on the receiving end of
such courtship, if they're located near a phenomenon that might exploitable
(research, resources whatever) or even just as a thorn in the side of the
opponents of the Major Power that's doing the wooing.
Some ships might become considered "Cherry" assignments if assigned to
a wealthy, lush world... except for the gung-ho crew or the Naval
officers who want a combat command to "prove their mettle".
Plus, isn't it always the "It's so boring on this ship, we're never going to
see combat out here..." guys that get hammered by the enemy first in the great
surprise attacks?
--
Best regards,
Flak
Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
http://www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72
> Monday, January 28, 2002, 10:47:07 AM, GBailey wrote:
> Okay, a strange little question (from a strange little man) - Talking
Gac> Are you going to have 1 or more of these little carriers in every system?
Gac> That's going to be expensive, since most planetary systems will never
Gac> see combat. Where is the carrier going to be stationed? It may end Gac>
up being on the wrong side of the solar system to help. If it stays Gac> with
whatever it's supposed to be protecting then build a fighter base Gac> at that
location instead. It will also need escorts. More expense in Gac> systems that
don't see combat.
Gac> I've tried to make the battle-rider concept (ala Traveller) work,
but in Gac> FT the 10% for an FTL drive is a very small price to pay for the
Gac> flexibility of star travel. Now if it required an extra 10-30% of
the Gac> ship's mass for FTL fuel then we're talking. But the design system
Gac> makes all that stuff extra outside the scope and we don't have to worry
Gac> about it. This is fine for some things. Star Trek-based designs
shouldn't Gac> have large fuel requirements, I don't think B5 or Star Wars
ships Gac> worry about it either. Of course, these are story driven universes,
Gac> not gear-head rpg universes (like Traveller <grin>). In a
campaign Gac> setting you could add an FTL fuel requirement (say 5% ship mass
Gac> for x amount of FTL distance) and let people design ships based Gac> on
that, but that doesn't apply to regular FT play and printed ships.
Gac> Glen
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:47:07 EST GBailey@aol.com writes:
<snip>
> Are you going to have 1 or more of these little carriers in every
It's basically a two star, 2 plus planets in each system, with 6 little
proto-nations in fighting and dealing with the Evil Empire in Training
(no, not GW, even worse, the UNSC!) plus during the third solar war
non-Kra'vak 'Maybe Aliens' appearances. The biggest in numbers (and
lowest in tech) is the PHR.
I posted a series of history notes for this little back water rumble(s)
earlier. Basically it's one RH group, several NAC semi-autonomous and
autonomous groups who vary from generally friendly to "Why do we have to be on
the same side?" and a few 'independents'.
Gracias,