Re: FT: % or Fixed Mass Screens etc? The Case for the Defence

Many thanks for answering my worries about screens and armour.

In defence of streamlining costing mass.
Streamlining involves a lot of additional mass, turning a box or barrel 
shaped hull into something at least slightly stramlined is going to add 
mass to the hull. Then adding thrusters, undercarrige and all the 
'airplane bits' is going to add more.
A lot probably depends on your own image of stramlining, is a bit 
rounded good enough or must it be airframe? I always assumed that fully 
stramlined was airframe.
I should go back to Fire, Fusion and Steam or GURPS Vehicles and check 
their numbers for stramlining.
In our campaign game I was fighting a desparate rearguard action against

ships being built anywhere but orbital shipyards, the idea of hordes of 
little ships lifting off from any planet really bothered me. Again this 
was caused by different perceptions, mine were earth based, late 19th or

early 20th century. You need a lot of industrial infrastructure to build

warships. The smaller planets were like Africa or South America, with no

industry to speak of, certainly nothing capable of building a starship.

Don't worry about the big guns, I was just extrapolating the curve a 
little too far...
I am very glad to hear that penetration be become a factor.

Again many thanks,
MRB

		 Michael R. Blair
************************URL************************
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1070/index.html
************************URL************************

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com