Re[2]: small carrier expense

I'm not totally up on the rules yet, but in most sci-fi settings I've
read, the FTL drive is the most expensive part of a FTL vessel, far.
So the decision to make a non-FTL ship would be economic, which may or
may not be reflected in whatever game setting your using.

So, if FTL drives are cheap in "your game" then sure, there would be
no practical use for system-defense specific vessels with no FTL
capability.

-- 
Best regards,
 Flak				
 Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
 http://www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72

Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 9:16:54 AM, GBailey wrote:

>>You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take that
>>thinking just a step or two further...
>>
>>In the situation in which it was suggested, a _Major Power_ was
>>courting a system for whatever reason.  If the Major Power thinks the
>>return on the investment for deploying a Non-FTL system defense ship
>>to give the "Natives" a warm fuzzy feeling, and thus winning them over
>>to "their side" then the Major Power will deploy those ships. Even if
>>their not going to see combat.  It would depend on the system being
>>rich or strategic in some way.

Gac> So why not send in a FTL-equipped task force for temporary duty?
Gac> Once it's primary mission is complete it can go elsewhere without
the
Gac> need of any special FTL-equipped towing vessel.  That measely 10%
Gac> for FTL capabilities is a small price to pay for the flexibility.

Gac> Glen

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?