Prev: Re: Manuever warfare was:Anti-Tank guns Next: 婇⁇楆瑣潩㩮删뛃⁴慈敦

[FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . .

From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@e...>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:19:31 -0500
Subject: [FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . .

In the discussion among the IFWG re: New Jordanian Navy, (gratuitous ad:
http://www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/NewJordan.html has everything
except what I'm discussing here), Noam expressed the idea that in
addition to the handful of FTL ships and somewhat more numerous STL
ships, the New Jordanians relied a great deal on orbital installations
and other stationary targets.  So I says "Hey, I need some of these to
defend my planets too!".  So I sit down to design 'em.	And I run into a
big problem.

Thrusters.

I want my stations and sattelites to rotate and roll over, at least the
smaller ones.  Otherwise some of my unmanned defense satellite designs
start to suck.	See:

Defsat 1:
	Mass 3
	Hull 1
	FiCon 1
	Class 1
	Total 12 points

This is good.  This works fine.

Defsat 2, for those plagued by folks in small fast targets.
	Mass	10
	Hull	2
	1xADFC	2
	6xPDS	6
	Total	40 points.  Also not a problem.

Defsat 3:
	Mass	3
	Hull	1
	MT Missle 2
	Total 11 points.  This needs to rotate to point at the bad guys.
 As
does it's big brother, 

Defsat 4:
	Mass	5
	Hull	1
	SMR	4
	Total	19

So are there any ideas on a mass/point cost for these puny thrusters
which can't move a ship a single inch, but can rotate and roll 'em?  I'd
like to make 'em nominal mass, but cost 5% of station mass, or 1 point,
whichever is more.  :)

John M. Atkinson


Prev: Re: Manuever warfare was:Anti-Tank guns Next: 婇⁇楆瑣潩㩮删뛃⁴慈敦