Re: Fleet Book Tugs

> Eric Fialkowski wrote:
> > 
> > At 10:11 AM 8/6/98 -0900, you wrote:

> > I saw no place that explains the mass or cost of a tug FTL drive and
that
> > is what I was refering to.
> 
> Page 8, under 'Tugs And Tenders' (paraphrased):
> 
> Mass is as normal for the ship itself, plus 20% of the mass it can tow
> through FTL.
> 
> Chris

If that is so, then putting a small 'Tug' system on all of one's
Capital ships makes some sense.  Spend 2 Mass and 6 points and your
capital ship can carry a 10 Mass ship's boat.

Tug systems are most economical with low thrust ships.
A 20 Mass Tug system on a 2 Thrust FTL ship requires 25 Mass of Hull
for the Hull plus 5 Mass for the extra drive.
Total:	60 + 25 + 10 = 95
A 20 Mass Tug system on a 4 Thrust FTL ship requires 29 Mass of Hull
for the Hull plus 9 mass for the extra drive.
Total:	60 + 29 + 27 = 116
A 20 Mass Tug system on a 6 Thrust FTL ship requires 33 Mass of Hull
for the Hull plus 13 mass for the extra drive.
Total:	60 + 33 + 39 = 132
A 20 Mass Tug system on a 8 Thrust FTL ship requires 40 Mass of Hull
for the Hull plus 20 mass for the extra drive.
Total: 60 + 40 + 60 = 160

You get the greatest payoff, or at least, pay the smallest penalty,
for towing ships with a high thrust and/or streamlining.

For example:
A 100 Mass Thrust 8 ship with Streamlining and 20 Structure points
and no FTL drive has 20 Mass left over for systems.

An FTL ship with 20 Mass in systems, Thrust 8, Streamlining and 20
Structure points would have to mass 133 (and 1/3).

The difference between the cost of the FTL version and the non-FTL
version is 3 times the mass difference, or 100 points.

(Streamlining cost 20% of mass, plus 2* Mass spent streamlining, right?)

Because shields also cost on the basis of a percentage of the ship's
mass, shields would be slightly more economical for a non-ftl ship
than an otherwise equally capable but larger ftl ship.

For example, a non-ftl ship Massing 100 might have the same amount of
structure and armor as an FTL ship Massing 120, but it would be cheaper
to put shields on the non-ftl version.

Recommended ship designs for use on towed ships:

Scout:
The minimal size scout is significantly smaller and cheaper for
the non-ftl version.  A thrust 8 scout with 1 structure point
requires 2 Mass for the non-ftl version vs 3 mass for the ftl
version.  The more scouts you have the wider the scout-net you
can send out.  (If useful scanning requires a Firecon, then you
are comparing Mass 3 Thrust 8 to Mass 4 Thrust 6 ships, or
Mass 5 Thrust 8 ships)

Planetary interface craft:
Why pay for those over-priced hangars when you can just tow these
guys into the system?  You may have significantly reduced firepower
when they are docked with their parent ship because they block the
gunports, but nothing is free...

Eggshells armed with hammers:
The classic is the 10 Mass, 1 structure point, Thrust 8 Long range
Salvo rack ship.

Pursuit Cruiser:
Thrust 8, 2 shields, Mass ~ 60.  For those who want high speed powerful
ships but don't want to pay so much.  Useful for in-system patrols,
pursuing, intercepting or reinforcing as the situation calls for.

In short, any ship class with ~50% of its mass in systems which cost
as a percentage of the ship's total mass are good candidates.  Also,
any ship classes which will be exposed to significantly higher fire
and therefore losses.  If you expect to lose 75% of your scout ships
each engagement, you are better off buying the cheapest possible
scouts.

A while ago, I did some analysis showing that the less mass spent on
engines the larger the percentage of the remainder should be spent on
armor.	Our Thrust 2 Tugs will probably have a significant percentage
of their remaining systems devoted to armor and structure.

A good pair could be a heavily armored Thrust 2 Carrier/Tug paired with
an escorting Pursuit Cruiser.

Example Pursuit Cruiser:
Mass 60
Thrust 8
12 Structure 4 Armor
2 Shields
ADAF
2 Fire Cons
9 Beam-1s

or:
2 Fire Cons
2 Pulse Torpedos (with extra arcs) or Beam-3s
remaining mass PDAFs, no ADAF

Michael Sandy