Subject:
|
Re: Fighter Launch Rack and other Hangar Bay Questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:12:22 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2176 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, John D. Forinash writes:
> In article <FsIw0I.Bw2@lugnet.com>, Bob Jackson <omegax@newrealm.net> wrote:
> > By the way, do you think capital ships should be able to carry other capital
> > ships? The larger ship would have to be a truly great size and the smaller
> > ship would have to be a frigate or gunboat class, but is it feasible? The
> > Eclipse Star Destroyer could hold an entire Star Destroyer in its docking
> > bay. Is it reasonable to build a very large capital ship with a small force
> > of strike cruisers inside the hangar?
>
> While I don't see any reason to declare "capital ships cannot carry other
> capital ships", my imagination can't come up with a reason why one would
> bother. I can understand the idea of "docking" two ships together, but why
> would one devote a huge amount of space simply toward enclosing another
> ship that is itself already enclosed? Similarly, once you've moved it
> into this enclosed area, what do you do with it? Grab it with that very
> same docking collar you were going to use before? Or "land" the ship on the
> deck, though capital ships aren't often designed to "land" on things?
The best reason I could think of to carry a Capital ship would be if you were
using rules about jump drives/hyperspace engines and fuel taking up
significant amounts of space, ala old Traveller.
In Traveller, a ship carrying a normal amount of fuel for hyperspace travel
would have about half the ship's volume consumed by the fuel and hyperspace
engine. Comparing two ships of the same size, one jump capable and one not,
the non-jump capable ship should be much more heavily armed and armored, and
possible cheaper.
Also, regardless of the size of the ship, only one spinal mount (large,
centrally mounted ship destroying weapon) was allowed per ship.
Traveller then postulated a tender, mostly a frame with huge fuel tanks and a
huge hyperspace engine, which carried a few cheap, heavily armored non-jump
ships with spinal mounted guns.
Theoretically, you could get more bang for the buck ( or megacredit :) ) that
way, though if your tender gets destroyed, all your carried ships are stuck in
that system. If you're in a battle where your tender gets destroyed,
presumable the battle is going poorly, and your marooned ships won't be around
by the time you get your next tender there.
An alternative use would be for ferrying monitors around, monitors being
defined as non-jump capable large ships, created in a system
and used for defending that system.
I hope this helps.
George
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Fighter Launch Rack and other Hangar Bay Questions
|
| (...) While I don't see any reason to declare "capital ships cannot carry other capital ships", my imagination can't come up with a reason why one would bother. I can understand the idea of "docking" two ships together, but why would one devote a (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.space)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
