Re: Planetary invasion ramblings (longish)

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> 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.
>
> Wellll... yes and no. Under the FTFB design system the FTL drive uses
10%
> of the ships total Mass, so an SDB has more space for other things.
> However, it is cheaper than any weapons or electronics, so the SDB
will
> actually cost somewhat more than a similar FTL-capable ship :-/
That's not a problem.  Many of the FT2 SDB designs cost more than a
similar massed FTL ship.  It's all the additional weapons and defensive
systems
that make the SDB a more potent fighter.
Jon

------------Reply separator--------------------

I think the important distinction is that while SDB's will not have the
advantage of being cheaper on a Mass for Mass basis, they will be
cheaper
on a Gun for Gun basis, since you need to up the size of a normal ship
to
carry the payload of the SDB - so yes, they are economically effective -
I
wouldn't rate my fleet designs based on the tonnage of the ships, but
rather the combination of capabilities (i.e. systems)

Jared