Re[2]: non-FTL carriers/ships

You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take that
thinking just a step or two further...

In the situation in which it was suggested, a _Major Power_ was
courting a system for whatever reason.	If the Major Power thinks the
return on the investment for deploying a Non-FTL system defense ship
to give the "Natives" a warm fuzzy feeling, and thus winning them over
to "their side" then the Major Power will deploy those ships. Even if
their not going to see combat.	It would depend on the system being
rich or strategic in some way.

Even a dirt-poor planet might find themselves on the receiving end of
such courtship, if they're located near a phenomenon that might
exploitable (research, resources whatever) or even just as a thorn in
the side of the opponents of the Major Power that's doing the wooing.

Some ships might become considered "Cherry" assignments if assigned to
a wealthy, lush world... except for the gung-ho crew or the Naval
officers who want a combat command to "prove their mettle".

Plus, isn't it always the "It's so boring on this ship, we're never
going to see combat out here..." guys that get hammered by the enemy
first in the great surprise attacks?

-- 
Best regards,
 Flak				
 Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
 http://www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72

Monday, January 28, 2002, 10:47:07 AM, GBailey wrote:

>>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 

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

Gac> I've tried to make the battle-rider concept (ala Traveller) work,
but in
Gac> FT the 10% for an FTL drive is a very small price to pay for the
Gac> flexibility of star travel.  Now if it required an extra 10-30% of
the
Gac> ship's mass for FTL fuel then we're talking.  But the design system

Gac> makes all that stuff extra outside the scope and we don't have to
worry 
Gac> about it. This is fine for some things.  Star Trek-based designs
shouldn't
Gac> have large fuel requirements, I don't think B5 or Star Wars ships
Gac> worry about it either.  Of course, these are story driven
universes,
Gac> not gear-head rpg universes (like Traveller  <grin>).  In a
campaign
Gac> setting you could add an FTL fuel requirement (say 5% ship mass
Gac> for x amount of FTL distance) and let people design ships based
Gac> on that, but that doesn't apply to regular FT play and printed
ships.

Gac> Glen

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?