SV: Strike Boats...

Schoon wrote:

>>Tenders are a very expensive way of getting FTL capability for those
>>boats, though - if you had replaced the tenders with average-hulled
>>battleships (with the same equipment as the tenders except for the
tug
>>FTL drives and having 40 hull boxes instead of 36) and made the
>>strikeboats Mass 11, cost 40, FTL-equipped, you could've bought
>>another 4 or 5 strikeboats.
> 
> I would tend to agree with the idea of building a tender that could
stand
> in the battle line as well. A light tender is only a target - or
wasted
> points sitting in the rear.

These battleships have no tug capacity, so you're agreeing with Imre
here.
 
>>His ships also had an effective range of 48mu. Thrust-4 strike boats
>>might have been OK if his ships had had thrust *0*, but it is too
slow
>>otherwise.
> 
>Agreed again. The high thrust of SBs is not only to "chase or evade
the
>enemy," but primarily to close the range as quickly as possible so
more >of them survive to deliver their payloads.

...but this time you're agreeing with me <g>
 
>On the other hand. SBs should expect losses - high ones even.

I would have expected them to suffer considerably more than 10 dead
even with the tenders playing fire magnets. The ESU was limited by lack
of FCs, not by lack of firepower, so the presence of the tenders in the
first wave only meant they had something to throw all their excess beam
dice at.

Given the designs on the opposing sides, using the tenders as fire
magnets cost one tender destroyed and one damaged (barring a Teske
Field effect this means around 90 beam dice even if the reactor was
killed on the first opportunity, ie the 2nd threshold) and saved the
life of maybe as many as 8 strikeboats (16 damage points, needing about
20-25 beam dice to inflict).

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