RE: Re: (FT) Point Value for Hulls

Laserlight wrote:
>Nope, we measure hull *surface* is square meters.  Hull surface is
>what we wrap around the payload.  If we can fit in more payload
>(cubic) per hull surface (area), then we're more efficient.

Oerjan said
>But the ship's Mass (TMF) isn't proportional to its hull *surface*, and
neither is the basic FBx hull cost. The hull cost is proportional to
the ship's *Mass* (equal to the TMF), and the Mass is roughly
proportional to the *volume*...
>The effect of your proposal is that the average *density* of a TMF 100
ship is 0.0001 times the average *density* of a TMF 1 ship. That sounds
rather unlikely, don't you think?

Someone had suggested that escorts were unrealistically disadvantaged
because small ships ought to be more efficient than big ships.	I'm
pointing out that, realistically, smaller is *not* more efficient.  Hull
surface and armor contribute nothing to payload, so a lower
surface:volume ratio is good and bigger ships (of the same shape) have
an advantage over smaller ships.  

FT doesn't take this into account, and I'm not complaining, I'm just
pointing out that adding realism in this case doesn't help the escorts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at