Re: [FT] Tug confusion

Jared E Noble wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Well, here's the rub - what you designed is valid by the rules, but
not
> practical by the text.  The average FTL transit consists of a series
of jumps,
> with delays of 6+ hours between them, while "on average, naval vessels
on most
> missions will make no more than one jump per day".  The tug has no
provisions
> for the fighter crew, or refueling, or rearming.  So essentially the
pilots are
> stuck in their fighters for the entire duration.  They must rely on
the Life
> support ability of said fighters.  They have at most their initial
endurance of
> 6 (or 9 if long-range) but I would hotly contend that extended
deep-space travel
> burns endurance.  And once there, they use it up and are screwed.
> 
XXX
     I must disagree here, this tug is a special purpose ship and
therefore
would provide access to the hull for the fighter pilots.   The tug would

also provide fuel/energy to the fighters thru carry frame connections
(or
thru a dedicated connection).	Even the FB rules state that the fighter
pilots are the only ones added to the crew of a carrier when the
fighters 
are added.   The differance between the tug and a carrier is simple, no
repairs can be conducted or spares for the fighters are carried on the
tug.  
Other than pilot, fuel and energy for the weapons nothing can be added
or removed from the fighter.   This is the reason that no special attack
type fighters can be carried on the tug.  (Well, from my point of view.)
JTL
XXX
> Also, tugs may not be able to use their own drives to tow the fighters
in
> realspace (read FB p8 - "designed to tow other ships through jump by
extendind
> their jumpfield around them".  So you need mechanical linakge, or else
the
> fighters use their own drives for all maneuvering.
XXX
     Tug sub-light drives are designed to operate at the loaded mass of
the tug.
Towing the cargo should not be a problem.   JTL
XXX
...Snip...JTL
> >Noam R. Izenberg		   noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu
> 
> Jared Noble

Bye for now,
John L.