Re: Size Class Escalation -- How high in Mass?

--- Jerry Acord <acord@imagiware.com> wrote:
...
> Typically one will want "balanced" games in which
> the point-values of fleets
> are balanced, i.e. each side has equivalent "power";
> or in some cases,
> different levels of power but then different
> objectives.  But perhaps the
> thing to consider is an economic rather than
> point-value balance.

This idea that big ships are uneconomical to build
is a popular one, but how realistic is it? It seems
to me that there is no particular reason to believe
that pound for pound it's more expensive to construct
larger ships. In other words, if it takes $100 to
build a 100 mass ship, I see no reason why it would
take more than $200 to constuct a 200 mass ship. It
might even cost less pound for pound (only 1 bridge,
only 1 ftl, etc. vs. 2 for building 2 100 massers)

Now the construction of a ship bigger than any ever
constructed before will have R&D delays (gee we've
never built a grav drive that big), but that isn't
really a factor normally. It seems to me if you
have a construction yard that can build SDN's, then
they can get pretty efficient about turning them
out, especially with modular construction techniques
allowing parallelization of the construction. Look
how fast the world powers in WWI turned out their
Dreadnoughts. The brits built the first one in less
than a year (though they diverted parts meant for
other ships).

So why would it be cheaper to turn out 4 50 mass 
ships than 1 200 mass one?

Remember just about every SDN uses standard weapons,
standard (if large) FTL's and maneuver engines,
standard bulkheads, standard core systems, standard
fire control systems, standard screens,etc. Does
Jon say small ships are easier or cheaper to build
mass for mass?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail