Re: small carrier expense

> >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.
> 
> So why not send in a FTL-equipped task force for temporary duty?
> Once it's primary mission is complete it can go elsewhere without the
> need of any special FTL-equipped towing vessel.  That measely 10%
> for FTL capabilities is a small price to pay for the flexibility.
> 
> 
> Glen

One reason for giving/selling a non-FTL capable carrier to a system is
that
it would be strctly a defensive weapon and could not be used to attack
other  systems, yours or somebody elses. This could be the results of
treaties with other powers or because you dont totally trust the system
you
are giving the carrier to.