Re: IF Fleet

Laserlight wrote:

> >>  Non-FTL ships are much more powerful on a BPV cost than
> FTL ships.
> >
> >Roughly 10-15% more powerful per NPV, as long as you don't
> count the
> >cost fo the tugs. With enough "minimal" tugs (fragile hull,
> no
> >defences, no weapons, thrust-1) to carry the entire non-FTL
> fleet,
> >they're some 30% *less* powerful than standard FTL-equipped
> warships
> >with similar armaments/defences.
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to see how you derived that, 

You know, looking at the 70% figure after some hours of sleep, so would
I :-/ 

It looks as if I doubled the cost of the tug or suffered a major typo;
that minimalistic tug gives its non-FTL brood a bang roughly *90%* of
the same value of similarly-equipped FTL ships, not 70%.

As for how it is derived: The combat power of an FT ship is basically
proportional to sqrt(Weapon Mass * (Hull boxes + Armour boxes)) - ie,
classic attrition theory holds for FT. (Yes, I have validated it both
against simulations and the battles I've fought during the past year.)
This is modified in a variety of ways by screens, the hull/armour
ratio,	exact weapon mixes, the number of FCs and most importantly (and
virtually impossible to calculate the impact of) the thrust rating,
which is why I assume FTL ships with similar equipment as the non-FTL
ones - this conveniently removes all these problems <g> Comparing the
ratios between combat power and cost (including the cost of the tug for
the non-FTL force) gives the values above.

> and what you'd say is a reasonable "mark up" for non-FTL ships (like
the
> IF) for a one-off battle where jump drives make no difference.

10-15% less points than the non-FTL force. Might seem too little for
one-shot missile boats, but then FTL-capable single-shot missile boats
often seem a bit overpowering as well :-/

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry