Re: Planetary invasion ramblings (longish)

On 15 Jun 98 at 14:04, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Sure, there may be a few left behind and your point about SDBs
> > is a good one (though less so with the advent of the FB, I suspect)
> 
> Why? I assume even with FB it is quite feasible to design a non-FTL
> capable ship which (by virtue of not needing the FTL drives) has
> more hull capacity (and maybe space freed up by fuel) to accomodate
> more armour, weapons and ECM.... and costs less.... therefore making
> a wonderful planetary defence option.

Not having FTL drives in the Fleet book gives you back 10% of your 
hullspace. Previously you got rather more, I think. Even so, for a 
cruiser sized ship, it means an extra shield, and/or some armour, or 
an extra gun or two, or SML's.. or a small combination. Bearing in 
mind an SDB's desire to pack a major punch in a short time, then run 
behind the umbrella of planetside weapons, SML's are a good 
proposition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard Slattery	     richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk
All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or
fattening. 
     Alexander Wolcott
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~