Prev: Re: [FT] PBeM Game - BYOF Next: Re: Vector Movement

Fw: [FT] Islamic Federation ships and Pournelle sensors

From: Laserlight <laserlight@c...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:38:54 -0400
Subject: Fw: [FT] Islamic Federation ships and Pournelle sensors

-----Original Message-----
From: John Atkinson <>
To: Laserlight <>

>OK, did some number-juggling.
>Assume the "standard" tug is
>Mass 40
>Hull 4
>Main Drive 2 (Thrust 1)
>FTL 4
>Tug FTL 30
>Point Cost: 120
>Tug Capacity: 150 mass
>This is the Light Freighter with everything stripped out in favor of
>tug capacity.	A medium or heavy tug would simply multiply capacity by
>two or three.
>This Light Tug has some problems from an economical standpoint.  The
>obvious "Standard" lighter is:
>Mass 50
>Hull 5
>Main Drive 5 (Thrust 2)
>Cargo 40
>Points 70
>and the light tug carries three of 'em.  For the price of two tugs and
>six lighters, we can purchase 10 light freighters (actually we are 10
>points short) with 270 cargo capacity vice the 240 offered by the
>lighters, and have the additional flexibility of multiple hulls with

 [ I assume the IF has problems which increase their actual cost for
FTL--L ]

>But using this light tug as a basis for squadron organization in the IF
>Navy makes for some interesting set-ups.  Of course they aren't
>optimized-there is unused capacity in all but the 3xSaber/Turcoman
>configuration.  But in the first place, efficiency just isn't a
>hallmark of the Islamic Federation.  And in the second, there is a
>price you pay for depending on civilian vessels for your operational
>and strategic mobility.
>Type 1: 4xHoms, 1xTurs, 1xLt Tug 571 points.  General purpose destroyer
>Type 2: 5xHoms, 1xLt Tug 570 points.  GP Destroyer group without
>anti-fighter capability.
>Type 3: 6xTurs, 1xLt Tug 666 points.  Escort group.
>Type 4: 2xQaws, 1xHom, 1xLt Tug 634 points.  Missle group with a
>beam-armed escort (not vs fighters, but vs other ships)
>Type 5: 3xTurcoman/Saber, 1xLight Tug 636/624 points.	CL Group
>Type 6: 1xSaber/Turcoman, 3xHoms, 1xLight Tug, 562/558 points.  Mixed
>Obvious groupings suggest themselves of these smaller squadrons.  One
>notes that on an average they are 40-50% the points cost of an Imperial
>light squadron.
>The other question has to do with FTL signature.  That will be the
>major determinant of this tug concept's viability.  If FTL dumps a lot
>of energy in the 'emergence' from a jump, then it utterly sucks to be a
>tug crewman, since that's what everyone is looking for with a high
>chance of sucess.
>And even if not, then it seems prudent to me to assign one or two ships
>to guarding the 'back door' so to speak--making sure your ride home
>survives has to be a top priority.  If the tugs can be sucessfully
>hunted, then defense against the IF is possible.  If not, it's going to
>be difficult in the extreme.

>Another point re: your website.  I sat down with the sensor rules

[as written by Phil Pournelle--see for details]

>, and
>I have a major problem with them.  The range bands are far too short.
>Your average capital ship has difficulty seeing a destroyer-sized
>target at the max effective range of it's main guns (ie size 3
>batteries).  Somehow I just don't think so.  You also have no real form
>of long-range sensors.  Using my house scale of 1 turn = 7.5 min, 1 MU
>= 1K km, 1 Thrust = 1G, the scales are shorter than what we can achieve
>in real life today.  I'm jacking the range bands up to 48" at
>least--all combat occours in the nearest range band.  After all, if I
>can focus energy enough to burn through armor and shielding at that
>range, doesn't it stand to reason that I can send out pulses strong
>enough to serve as sensors at a much longer range? Am considering 60"
>John M. Atkinson
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free address at

Prev: Re: [FT] PBeM Game - BYOF Next: Re: Vector Movement