Re: [ft]modular ships

John Leary wrote:
> 
> --- mary <r2bell@home.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Before I respond to this, I have already accepted
> > modular weaponry,
> XXX
>      Half the battle is won.
> XXX
> 
> > but I will probably never accept reconfigurable
> > structure.
> XXX
>      My point of view is:   Consider we are talking
> about an airplane with eight engines, if we install
> only 6, the planes performance will be reduced, but
> it will still fly.   All the hardware necessary
> for the additional two engines is installed.
> XXX

If you replace the two engines with an equal weight of weapons or armor,
it will not get off the ground.  In a ship, swapping out engines for
weapons is also prevented, but this time it is due to the engines'
placement in the bowels of the ship

A similar argument goes against replacing cargo space with weapons
modules, because weapons need to be surface mounted and cargo tends to
be empty space enclosed by the minimum ammount of hull (exception: SML's
lend themselves for emplacement in cargo ships' holds).  But this is a
non-issue because, unlike Brilliant Lances and Star Cruiser, FT ignores
the compromises required for hull geometry.