Re: (FT) Point Value for Hulls

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Robert Blair <pellinoire@yahoo.com>
To: <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: (FT) Point Value for Hulls

> If you are going to vary point cost based on mass them
> the bigger the ship is the LESS you should pay per
> point of mass.
>
> Smaller hulls are more expensive to build per tonne
> than larger hulls - economies of scale. One large ship
> is much cheaper to build and operate, especially
> operate, than any number of smaller ships carring the
> same aggregate mass of cargo.
>
> The battle line wins again!
>
> Michael
>
This is something that I have been thinking about since the FB design
rules
came out. The first is the crewing costs and therefore the running costs
of
civilian ships and freighters. I may have missed something, but the
crewing
requirments of ships (all ships, not just millatary) is based on their
hull
size/mass. This should be altered to a lower figure for civilians of a
mass
figure plus something. What I`m trying to say is their should be some
advantage (in crewing costs at least) to running large civilian ships.
The
other thing about large ships is they should cost more to build in the
first
place due to the longer construction times and the interest on the
capitol
to build them. This would be a way a capitol ship would cost more than a
escort. I leave better minds than mine to work out the figures <G>.

BIF
 "yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
 strong in arms, thick in head"