Re: (FT) Point Value for Hulls

> Laserlight wrote:
>
> >>It seems to me that the size vs. point cost issue could be solved
by
> >>making the cost more realistic.  What I propose is that the mass
cost
> be
> >>squared (if not cubed), because bigger means bigger in proportion.
> >
> >Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.  Volume is a function of
> >radius cubed, surface is only a function of radius squared.
Therefore
> >bigger ships will be able to pack in more stuff per square meter of
> >hull.  That hurts escorts rather than helping them.

Oerjan said:
> Do the Alarishi measure hull volume in *square* meters? Ah well, I
> always thought their warship designs were a bit two-dimensional ;-)

Nope, we measure hull *surface* is square meters.  Hull surface is
what we wrap around the payload.  If we can fit in more payload