Prev: Re: FT-Battleships Next: Re: FT-Battleships

Re: FT-Battleships

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:40:29 +0100
Subject: Re: FT-Battleships

In message <003101c0ccff$e18b3f60$f8c3893e@inty>
	  "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:35 PM
> Subject: Re: FT-Battleships
> 
> 
> > I missed some of this thread, but it sounds like
> > you're using something like the supership concept
> > to design a little ship inside the ship. In other
> > words, each turret is a small vessel containing
> > some systems? If this is true, then it can have
> > it's own drive system (MD1) sufficient to move the
> > turret and based on the weight of the turret?
> >
> > Maybe it would help if you published an entire
> > example. Say a Vree battlesaucer with a big
> > turret in the middle, all costed out?
> >
> That`s what I was aiming for originally, raised by the fact the
turrets on
> the musashi/yamato wheighed more than a destroyer. I suppose you could
build
> them with engines, but that would require you to add 50% mass for the
> launching bay. A turret would be securly and very permanatly fixed to
the
> main hull, and wouldn`t be able to be removed away from a large
shipyard. Of
> course, they could be blown off by weapons fire.
> 
> BIF
>
> "Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
> strong in arms, thick in head"

I _think_ Dave was suggesting that the MD1 drive represent the turret
motors needed to turn the thing - ATM it doesn't have any means by which
the turret could be moved.

Prev: Re: FT-Battleships Next: Re: FT-Battleships