RE: Tenders and stuff

Cargo space would strike me as being the primary set-back to this
design:  Warships are constructed for one purpose - war, FTL Tenders
carry and in some instances, repair other ships.  Warship designs aren't
supportive of carrying other ships essentially 'moored to it' like a
tender would, besides I think you best summed it up this way and
answered your own question about attaching it to a warship:

>"If Tender systems have to go on Merchant hulls, can 
>they go on Q-ships?"

Gil
 Murphy's Laws of Combat #8
"If at first you don't succeed -
>CALL IN AN AIRSTRIKE!"

>----------
>From:	mehawk@cnnw.net[SMTP:mehawk@cnnw.net]
>Sent:	Wednesday, December 10, 1997 11:09 PM
>To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
>Subject:	Tenders and stuff
>
>
>Yup, more silly questions:
>Can the Tender-FTL system be installed on a warship?
>If so, it seems a real good fleet design would be
>to have all Capital ships with the Tender-FTL system,
>for a number of reason:
>
>1)  They can take highly combat capable non-ftl craft
>into battle
>2)  They can take damaged craft home again.  Especially
>vs those nasty people with needle missiles...
>3)  They can take _captured_ craft home again, see (2)
>4)  If their FTL system takes a threshold check they
>still can get their own butts out of there.  I'm
>guessing that the oversized FTL engines can take an
>extra hit.
>
>Instead of paying for a tender:
>Mass x 1.5 Merchant Hull
>Mass x 3   FTL-tender
>Mass x 2    Normal Space Drive,
>or an additional cost of 6.5 per Mass of non-ftl ship,
>
>Buy an ordinary Capital ship where you are already using
>the hull, the basic FTL and the Normal Space drive, and
>only pay 2.0 per Mass of non-ftl ship.
>
>Since many non-ftl designs can beat ships of 140% their
>Mass one can see that a Tug-Dreadnought, non-ftl 
>Dreadnought can beat an equal cost pair of standard FTL
>Dreadnoughts.
>
>
>If Tender systems have to go on Merchant hulls, can 
>they go on Q-ships?
>
><snipped>
>Michael Sandy
>
>Looking for FT gamers in Portland, Or
>