small carrier expense

> You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take that

So why not send in a FTL-equipped task force for temporary duty?
Once it's primary mission is complete it can go elsewhere without the
need of any special FTL-equipped towing vessel.  That measely 10%
for FTL capabilities is a small price to pay for the flexibility.

I'm not totally up on the rules yet, but in most sci-fi settings I've
read, the FTL drive is the most expensive part of a FTL vessel, far.
So the decision to make a non-FTL ship would be economic, which may or
may not be reflected in whatever game setting your using.

So, if FTL drives are cheap in "your game" then sure, there would be
no practical use for system-defense specific vessels with no FTL
capability.

> At 11:14 AM -0500 1/29/02, Flak Magnet wrote:

Aside from the mass taken up by the FTL drive. That mass could be used for
additional weapons, main drive thrust, fighters, what have
you...

> >You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take that

One reason for giving/selling a non-FTL capable carrier to a system is
that it would be strctly a defensive weapon and could not be used to attack
other systems, yours or somebody elses. This could be the results of treaties
with other powers or because you dont totally trust the system you are giving
the carrier to.

From: Neil <rppl@pacificcoast.net>

> One reason for giving/selling a non-FTL capable carrier to a system

> > >You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take

I don't know if it's been addressed yet, but another advantage to building
small carriers is the amount of time it takes vs. a larger vessel. Also, loss
of a smaller carrier isn't as crippling as a larger one would be, either in
terms of combat strength or morale. In addition, there are some things that
smaller carriers are just better for when you don't want your big boys tied up
doing things like convoy escort, etc.

However in the 'ral virtual world' that I am using it *IS* the only almost a
capital ship (other then fancy BC wannabes) that any of the local 'powers'
have...

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:36:31 -0800 Mark Reindl <mreindl@pacbell.net>
writes:
> > >You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take

> On 31-Jan-02 at 22:35, Mark Reindl (mreindl@pacbell.net) wrote:
Also,
> loss of a smaller carrier isn't as crippling as a larger one would be,

I don't know about anywhere else but in FT my small carriers have been a
disaster. They aren't big enough to take any fire but attract attention out of
all proportion to their size. They are also painful to replace. With a bigger
carrier you can jump out if they get hurt, a small carrier just blows up.

By small carrier I'm assuming 2 squadrons.

The question is just what sort of defense is needed for convoy
protection, but this brings to mind the IJN aircraft-carrying subs
originally to designed to take out the Panama Canal:
http://www.pacerfarm.org/i-400/i-400.htm

A lot of other Japanese ships also came with a catapult-launched plane
or two. Depending on what you use them for, a couple of fighters can be a
nasty surprise to an opponent who notices you don't have any carriers along.

> Roger Books wrote:
Also,
> > loss of a smaller carrier isn't as crippling as a larger one would

> Roger Books wrote:

> On 31-Jan-02 at 22:35, Mark Reindl (mreindl@pacbell.net) wrote:
Also,
> loss of a smaller carrier isn't as crippling as a larger one would be,

Well, WW2 escort carriers (CVEs), which these seem to resemble, did have a
nice alternate expansion of their hull code.

Combustible Vulnerable & Expendable