In Full Thurst it says a Tug can haul other vessels equal to it's mass. The
only thing being that the FTL engines cost three times as many points but no
mass increase.
Is this how most people do it with all the FB1/2 additions, etc?
I was talking to someone off list and he said that the FTL mass should be
computed *including* the vessels which would carry a higher point cost as
well. The thrust should be computed including the carried vessels as well.
Then, as the ship drops off the vessels the thrust would be recomputed because
the ship is lighter.
I'm asking this because I'm trying to build a scenario for ECC and I want to
be fair to both sides.:)
Damo
> Damond Walker wrote:
> I was talking to someone off list
That would be me...:)
> and he said that the FTL mass should be
My feeling on FTL tugs is that they should be treated the same as cargo ships,
as far as their FTL engines are concerned. What's the difference
between a cargo ship hauling colonizing equiment, and a tug hauling
non-FTL capable ships? The FTL drive size / cost should be simply
computed based on the total mass (tug + carried ships).
Now buying hangars or hardened attachement points and such might be /
should be required, but that's beside the point.
> Damond Walker wrote:
> In Full Thurst it says a Tug can haul other vessels equal to it's mass.
The
> only thing being that the FTL engines cost three times as many points
I believe that most people who have FB1 use the tug design rules on page 8 of
that book. They seem to fit what the person you talked to told you.
Regards,
> On 10/3/02 4:33 PM, "Jerry Acord" <acord@imagiware.com> wrote:
> Now buying hangars or hardened attachement points and such might be /
So..if a ship designer wanted to install "hardpoints" in order to carry
the itty-bitty ships how would one work that. The craft being carried
are
mass 30 or 40 and the vessel carrying them would be in the mass 120-150
range.
Maybe using 10% of the mass of carried ships used in the tender to represent
additional hardpoints? That would require the tender (to use my example) to
set aside either 3 or 4 mass strike craft. Maybe 10% is too little...boost it
to 20%?
Damond
> At 7:30 PM -0400 10/3/02, Damond Walker wrote:
I just counted the "ship capacity" as a bay. this made it a bit large, but the
system works and it counts for the additional cost of the ability to wrap the
ship systems (drive fields) around the
ship/cargo. This makes something of a Float on Float off ship in
terms of its tactical ability to move small yard/system craft about
as a mother ship.
The USN has several of these ships in the civilian support side for moving
yard craft, large landing craft, and other small combatants to far flung
deployments where the smaller stuff would have a hard time deploying to due to
endurance or low open sea capability.
G'day,
> The USN has several of these ships in the civilian support side for
There's also the naval equivalent of the tow-truck for when ships are
damaged (the Cole) or they run into the only rock between Aussie territory and
the Galapagos!!!!! When the UK navy manages tricks like that it makes us
Aussies feel a bit better;)