Re: FT: FTL and Streamlining

Brian Bilderback wrote:

> A while back I brought up the issue of "Cutters", which in my gaming
setting
> will be non-FTL ships used for system patrol & defense.  One of the
things
> that came up was the fact that Non-FTL ships have more free space for
armor
> and weapons.	While I would not recommend this as a cure-all for the
> dilemma, I think I've found a ***[SETTING SPECIFIC]*** (disclaimer)
> flavor-based house rule that helps mitigate this imbalance, and will
fit in
> well with the concept behind the campaign/setting.
>
> Basically, I will require any ship designed without FTL to be at LEAST
> partially streamlined.  The background justification will be that
since
> these ships are often assigned to backworld systems, where they will
have
> less orbital infrastructure and interface support, they need to be
capable
> of planetary landing in case of the need for police action, repairs,
etc.
> It's shaky, but it keeps Non-FTL ships from needing a separate pricing
> structure in points cost (Since streamlining takes up as much or more
> capacity as FTL, and has a limited level of in-game usefulness, just
like
> FTL).
>
> Comments?
>

Once the mass cost of FTL went down to 10%, from 25%, of the ship, the
impetus
to have tugs drag in non-FTL ships waned.  In FT2, ships could only use
half of
their mass for weapons and stuff; unless, they were not FTL (which
allowed up to
75%).  Mass for mass, FTL-equipped ships could not combat non-FTL
vessels.  FB1
fixed this problem.