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

John,

Great ideas. This is exactly the kind of thing that I was thinking of
for
the Hegemony Strategic Defence Force; expect to see some examples up
there
soon!

Colin M Nash
Nash's Law:- "The amount of crap owned will expand to fill the available
space plus 2 cubic metres"

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com>
To: GZG-L <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 12 February 1999 05:23
Subject: [FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . .

>In the discussion among the IFWG re: New Jordanian Navy, (gratuitous
ad:
>http://www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/NewJordan.html has everything
>except what I'm discussing here), Noam expressed the idea that in
>addition to the handful of FTL ships and somewhat more numerous STL
>ships, the New Jordanians relied a great deal on orbital installations
>and other stationary targets.	So I says "Hey, I need some of these to
>defend my planets too!".  So I sit down to design 'em.  And I run into
a
>big problem.
>
>Thrusters.
>
>I want my stations and sattelites to rotate and roll over, at least the
>smaller ones.	Otherwise some of my unmanned defense satellite designs
>start to suck.  See:
>
>Defsat 1:
> Mass 3
> Hull 1
>	 FiCon 1
> Class 1
> Total 12 points
>
>This is good.	This works fine.
>
>Defsat 2, for those plagued by folks in small fast targets.
> Mass 10
> Hull 2
> 1xADFC 2
> 6xPDS 6
> Total 40 points.  Also not a problem.
>
>Defsat 3:
> Mass 3
> Hull 1
> MT Missle 2
> Total 11 points.  This needs to rotate to point at the bad guys.  As
>does it's big brother,
>
>Defsat 4:
> Mass 5
> Hull 1
> SMR 4
> Total 19
>
>So are there any ideas on a mass/point cost for these puny thrusters
>which can't move a ship a single inch, but can rotate and roll 'em? 
I'd
>like to make 'em nominal mass, but cost 5% of station mass, or 1 point,
>whichever is more.  :)
>
>John M. Atkinson
>