Prev: First Full Thrust ship Next: Re: First Full Thrust ship

Re: [FT]SML question

From: Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@s...>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:06:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [FT]SML question



Bif Smith wrote:

> A quick question regarding SML`s. I want to use a SML with limited
arcs (or
> more limited than present), and was wondering if mass 2 for a 2 arc
lancher,
> and mass 1 for a 1 arc launcher sounds reasonable? (at normal x3
cost).
>
> Also, in a campain, how would you people work the building rule to
prevent
> pure fighter forces (ie-fighters used as offence, with the carriers
> withdrawing and picking up new fighters at cheaper cost than a
starship?),
> or using "stingboats/LAC`s" with FTL tugs (which for the same mass are
> cheaper than a normal FTL warship, if the tug withdraws/is
reuseable?).

If you have FB2, encourage someone to build a Kra'Vak fleet.  The
Kra'Vak can
build a slightly off-balanced force that is not too bad against a fleet
with
niether SM's nor fighters (but it will be a little undergunned) that
will do to
the the pure fighter/carrier fleet what the pure fighter/carrier fleet
does to
FB1 fleets.  A Kra'Vak fleet intended to battle a pure fighter/carrier
fleet
(large numbers of small ships with MKP's and scatterguns) can defeat the
pure
fighter/carrier force while being seriously outnumbered in point value.

You also have to look at the non-combat, campaign implications.  Fighter
pilots
take a long time to train, and they can only learn by doing. 
Maintaining
proficiency will require time spent in a fighter.  Introduce a time lag
between
when a pilot is ordered, and when it arrives.  The pilot will need a
fighter for
the whole time that he/she/it is in training, and these fighters will
have to be
based somewhere.  All of this costs money.  If it takes six turns to
produce a
pilot, and the pure carrier force is replacing 15% of his fighters a
turn, then
there are almost as many pilots in training as there are serving on
carriers.
Starship crew replacement faces similar problems, but they are all less
severe.
Unlike wet navies, damage control in space does not involve keeping
water out,
and fires are easy to prevent/extinguish (unless there is a VIP that can
insist
on being in a pressurised compartment during a battle).  The tasks are
simplified and most animate objects with delusions of sentience will do,
as long
as they do not compose the entire crew (ie, a single turn is enough time
to
train common starmen).

FB1 & 2 did not re-examine tugs, but the original tug rules require that
the
tugs cannot pull more than their own mass of additional stuff through
hyperspace, so they will not be cheap, and they will be more expensive
than just
equipping the towed ships with FTL.  The individual warships are less
expensive,


Prev: First Full Thrust ship Next: Re: First Full Thrust ship