Re: tonnages was RE: DS2 Resins to FT or FTFB Mass

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> At 01:18 PM 11/25/98 +0000, that fool Anderson wrote:
> >it would be simple to work out, if it were not for the silly way
> >bigger ships have less efficient drives in FT2. is this fixed in
> >ft2.5?

> I'm not sure how it would work in FT2.  In 2.5, though, it makes a lot
of
> sense.  Each point of thrust requires 5% of the ships total mass to be
> devoted to engines.

i see. very sensible; i'm glad to see that one fixed. i plugged this
hole
in ft2 (all ships pay for drives as cruisers) and recalculated points
costs. suddenly, all-battleship fleets became very attractive. i then
changed the capitals to have better thrust, and it sort of balances out.
still very pro-battleship, though (not that there's anything wrong with
that - size does matter!).

> >this leads to the possibility that a carrier might dump its
> >fighters or a missile ship its missiles in order to boost thrust
> >and run away.
> I would tend to discourage this however.  IIRC, its been stated that
FT
> fighters mass less than one each.  I think the mass requirements for
> fighters and SLMs reflect the hangar bays, magazines and other support
> equipment which would not be reduced significantly with a launch.

quite; the mass a ship could lose by dumping stores is fairly minor.
unless you are the FCT or have one of beth's arsenal ships, of course
...

Tom