Re: [FT]: Base Construction

----- Original Message -----
From: CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:37 PM
Subject: RE: [FT]: Base Construction

>
> 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.
>
>
> Nathan "can I have that colour in A1 size?" Girdler
>
Or you can use the design system I use for FB construction  rules. I use
the
idea that asteroids are cheaper to build as forts than constructing a
fort
from scratch, but the deeper you mine into the asteroid, the more
expensive
it gets. A reason for digging deeper into a asteroid would be the extra
protection the rock would give you. I use the fact the hull cost
(everything
used in the asteroid fort/base, except the armour, which is free) costs
x1
for one layer of armour. I then use the Phalon armour system, with
multipul
armour layers, and for each layer of armour, the cost of the hull
doubles,
while the armour itself is still free. I also make a ruling that 2% of
the
mass of the ORIGINAL asteroid must be a station keeping drive and
powerplant(s).

Just the way I design them. Works for me, anyway.