Re: non-FTL carriers/ships

>Okay, a strange little question (from a strange little man) - Talking
>about System defense Ships:
>
>"Why not have a Non-FTL Carrier for system defense?"
>
>The idea worked as follows:
>
>1) Fighters have fuel constraints
>2) Bases (Planet) are long transit times to and from combat
>3) Stations (or planetoids) are frequently not where they are needed
and
>can't get there quickly
>4) Non-FTL Carriers can maneuver to position themselves in position to
>launch fighters supporting FTL/Non-FTL craft defending a system
>5) The loss of a FTL drive leaves more room for Bays, PDS, primary
>weapons 

Are you going to have 1 or more of these little carriers in every
system?
That's going to be expensive, since most planetary systems will never 
see combat.  Where is the carrier going to be stationed?  It may end
up being on the wrong side of the solar system to help.  If it stays
with whatever it's supposed to be protecting then build a fighter base
at that location instead.  It will also need escorts.  More expense in
systems that don't see combat.

I've tried to make the battle-rider concept (ala Traveller) work, but in
FT the 10% for an FTL drive is a very small price to pay for the
flexibility of star travel.  Now if it required an extra 10-30% of the
ship's mass for FTL fuel then we're talking.  But the design system 
makes all that stuff extra outside the scope and we don't have to worry 
about it. This is fine for some things.  Star Trek-based designs
shouldn't
have large fuel requirements, I don't think B5 or Star Wars ships
worry about it either.	Of course, these are story driven universes,
not gear-head rpg universes (like Traveller  <grin>).  In a campaign
setting you could add an FTL fuel requirement (say 5% ship mass
for x amount of FTL distance) and let people design ships based
on that, but that doesn't apply to regular FT play and printed ships.