Prev: Re: [FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . . Next: RE: Manuever warfare was:Anti-Tank guns

Re: [FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . .

From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@e...>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:57:25 -0500
Subject: Re: [FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . .

Izenberg, Noam wrote:

> That said, I hadn't thought of these installations with any movement
> capability at all - I was going to buy multiple arc beams and such.
But
> it makes sense to have maneuver thrusters. Seems to me that a station
> that wants to roll/rotate should pay for thrust 1  engines at full
mass
> but 1/2 cost. They may be puny, but they have to overcome the same
> inertia as ship's thrusters. Plus its a big savings not to have to buy
> extra arcs for your heavier weapons.

You can't buy Thrust 1 engines for a ship smaller than 20 mass without
fractional accounting, which morass I do NOT want Full Thrust to get
into.

John M. Atkinson


Prev: Re: [FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . . Next: RE: Manuever warfare was:Anti-Tank guns