RE: [FT]: Base Construction

From: ~ On Behalf Of David Reeves
Sent: 03 April 2002 15:01
Subject: [FT]: Base Construction

> I was thinking about FT construction rules for bases -- either
> fully fabricated or constructed out of asteroids. These would be
> installations to guard worlds, important facilities, strategic
> points. Since they would need only station-keeping drives, bases
> should be able to use a larger percentage of their total space
> to weapons/defenses, say 75%.

FT2 (and MT) have already been there. FT2 clearly limits systems
to 50% of total MASS (FT2 pg 27-28) though the 100 MASS limit does
NOT apply! However, since only drive costs are waived, building a
large base simply to soak up damage from an equivalent value of
ships isn't really an option unless the "one shield generator
covers all" loophole [1] is worth more than I think.

MT suggests the supership concept for bases, and also suggests
breaking the base up into separate entities. (MT pg 22.) These
are intended to increase playability, and do nothing to increase
combat efficieny.

I can't find any mention of bases in FB1 [2]. I assume you just buy
a hull and leave out any drives. Although Roger's point is valid, I
assume from your 75% suggestion that you are thinking of FT2 where
SMLs and SMRs do not exist.

Quite why bases are limited to 50% MASS for systems when non-FTL
vessels can use up to 75% is beyond me. If any one knows the 
reason why, I'd be interested to hear. 

Under FT2, how is the cost of a low-thrust drive for an escort or
a cruiser rounded? This determines whether the extra 25% MASS
available for systems on a non-FTL vessel makes bases a no-brainer;
instead of a base you have a fleet of defense boats who can scatter
or be loaded onto a tender.

MASS 16, THRUST-1 = 16 * 1 / 4 = 4 points, or is it 16 points?
Non-FTL vessel gains extra 25% of total MASS for systems 
Value of extra hull = 16 * 2 * 25% = 8 points [3]

[1] since fixed by FB1, as was the need for the supership concept.
[2] any correction or reference to past discussions welcome.
[3] not that you get any extra damage points, though.

> Any ideas out there? 

If a base is inside an asteriod or on the surface of a planet
or a moon, much of it can be buried beyond the reach of any FT
weapon. However, most of what we think of as systems have to be
on or near the surface in order to work. Deeply buried bases
would be highly resistant to FB1 Core Systems damage. (pg 5)

Asteroids might be cheaper to mine than true hulls are to build;
for that matter a hull that isn't going anywhere can be lighter
than one that is, not that this is any use to us. A base on a
planet could just consist of a handfull of cargo modules landed
by interface craft. "The generator's under this net, the
batteries are on the end of that cable and we have maser links
to the fire controls up in that mountain range." Very cheap.

I'd moderate asteroids by saying you can't strap drives onto
them a la PX Empress Troyhune [4] and go scooting around your
local solar system. If the whole thing doesn't end up as gravel
it will tumble each time the drive is applied.

I don't think installations on the surface of an asteroid would
be as easy to target (or even detect at a distance) as an
equivalent vessel would be. Detecting through an atmosphere
would be even more difficult, though this cuts both ways.

Don't forget the stalwart of any static defence: the mine. I
think mines [FT2 pg 18] get a very raw deal; they should be a
serious danger to capital vessels, but these are very unlikely
to even force a threshold check on an escort. I've umpired
mines by setting out a minefield then assigning SMR attacks
based on the number of MU the unlucky vessel has travelled
through the field; there are an unlimited number of mines and
they cannot be cleared during the course of a battle. 
 
[4] agility 6?? Supplement 9 for the Travellers out there.

=============================================================