No, not even commercial companies get away from my scrutiny <g>
First off, the "clock direction" system is somewhat difficult to read. Tony,
may I suggest that you use the fire arc codes on p.4 in FB instead?
CAPITAL SHIPS
Ben Gurion Class SDN is NPV 611, not 610.
Ramat David Class DN is NPV 511, not 499. It is equipped with 2
"Class-2 (11-1)" (ie, (F)-arc only) batteries, but but C2 batteries
come with 3 arcs as minimum.
CARRIERS
Dayan Class CVA: Design is OK, but to me "Hangar Space-72" means one
single huge hangar with space for 72 Mass of small craft rather than a hangar
with space for 48 Mass (8 fighter squadrons) or 8 separate fighter bays. Not
sure which of the latter two you mean, but some of my
Needle-armed ships would love a single huge hangar <g>
Gavish Class CVL: Uses only 91 Mass. It looks as if it is supposed to
have a Level-1 Screen; this would give the correct TMF and NPV but is
missing on the web page. Same problem with the hangars as the Dayan -
it only has space for 24 Mass of small craft/fighters (ie, 4
squadrons), not 36.
Ben Avis Class CVE: OK. Well, apart from the hangars :-/
Tolkovsky Class Very Light Carrier: Same as Ben Avis.
CRUISERS
Meir Class CH: OK. It carries 4 Class-2: 2 x 9-3 (FP/F/FS) and 2 x
7-1 (AP/FP/F), ie Alarishi-style offset batteries - but only for the
light guns, since the C3 batteries are mounted symmetrically. Is this
intentional?
Sharon Class CL: This ship can't fit 3 3-arc Class-3 batteries; they
should be C2s to fit the TMF and NPV.
Soltam Class CA: Shouldn't this ship have some FCs? <G> (Judging from the TMF
and NPV specified, it should have 3 of them but they're not listed on the web
page.)
ESCORT VESSELS
Reshef Class CT: This ship is either TMF 14, NPV 47 or TMF 15, NPV 50, but
*NOT* TMF 15, NPV 47... apart from that it's OK <g>
David Class DDH: OK, but I was a little surprised not to find a note about it
being a system defence boat (after seeing the Tal class, at
least :-) )
ASSAULT SHIPS
Merkava Class Assault Ship: Only uses 152 Mass. Screen-1 missing?
" Hanger Space-32; 2 x fighters groups plus 2 x TMF 10 shuttles"
This is the biggest reason I complained about all those carriers above; here
you suddenly state the total capacity of the hangar instead of its
total size instead of the other way around :-/ I much prefer this
notation to the one used for the other carriers, though.
Shafrir Class Assault Lander: If this is a *lander*, I'd probably want
some streamlining as well :-/
MERCHANTS AND FREIGHTERS
Negev Class Heavy Freighter: OK, but... screens on a Fragile hull looks like a
waste of money since they only give about half the protection the same Mass of
armour would (if they protect at all, which they only do against beams and EMP
missiles at the moment), and they cost more
than the armour would :-(.
Golan Class Container Ship: OK, but see Negev comment about screens.
Golan Class Merchant Fighter Carrier: Judging from the TMF and NPV of
this ship, the External Fighter Rack is Mass 10, Cost 30 - ie larger
and more expensive than a standard fighter bay. If that is true, what's the
point with using the external rack (except that the model looks cool)?
Sinai Class Light Merchant Cruiser: 3 Mass are unused. Should it be
Thrust-4 instead?
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> No, not even commercial companies get away from my scrutiny <g>
Don't have my copy of the FB to hand but I will have a look at these.
> CAPITAL SHIPS
Hull mass 176 = 176 pts Hull Integrity 3 (average) = 53 (52.8) mass = 106 pts
Main Engines 2 = 18 (17.6) mass = 36 pts FTL = 18 (17.6) mass = 36 pts Armour
9 = 9 mass = 18 pts Screens 2 = 18 (17.6) mass = 54 pts PDS x 4 = 4 mass = 12
pts FCS x 4 = 4 mass = 16 pts
Class-3 (2-arc) x 6 = 30 mass = 90pts
Class-3 (3-arc) x 1 = 6 mass = 18 pts
Class-4 (1-arc) x 2 = 16 mass = 48 pts
This definitely adds up to 610 pts. The areas for ambiguity are those
involving rounding, so I've put fractional values in brackets to show my
working. This all comes straight from my spreadsheet (as I say, I don't have
my FB to hand so I can't check these right now).
> Ramat David Class DN is NPV 511, not 499. It is equipped with 2
Whoops, typo, should be "11-5".
> CARRIERS
Hmmm, I guess that isn't too clear. The ship has 72 mass allocated for hangar
space, which allows it to carry 48 mass of small craft. These are allocated as
8 fighter bays as you suspect.
> Gavish Class CVL: Uses only 91 Mass. It looks as if it is supposed to
Yep, correct, one screen (doh!).
> CRUISERS
Damn, they should be 2 x 7-1 and 2 x 11-5 (too much late night cutting
and pasting here).
> Sharon Class CL: This ship can't fit 3 3-arc Class-3 batteries; they
Yep.
> Soltam Class CA: Shouldn't this ship have some FCs? <G> (Judging from
Ooops... three sounds about right.
> ESCORT VESSELS
The error was in an older version of the spreadsheet which didn't calculate
the weapon mass correctly (only added the mass of one weapon, not both) so it
should be 15, 50. However, there's no advantage gained from this (the
difference is simply in the mass of the FTL, yes?) so I guess I'll make it 14,
47.
> ASSAULT SHIPS
Yes.
> " Hanger Space-32; 2 x fighters groups plus 2 x TMF 10 shuttles"
Fair point. I'll clarify the way that I state hanger space for all ships.
> Shafrir Class Assault Lander: If this is a *lander*, I'd probably want
Hmmm... good point also. My spreadsheet doesn't cater for streamlining which
is why I forgot it!
> MERCHANTS AND FREIGHTERS
Interesting point. I tend to design my ships to what feels 'right', rather
than analysing the designs to provide the most efficient ships (unless I'm
playing a grudge match, in which case I can min-max with the best of 'em
...). So, what do the rest of you think - what's most appropriate for a
merchant ship - screens or armour ? My argument goes with screens as a
self-contained system that can be easily removed or replaced ("chuck out
the screen generator, Number One - we can squeeze another three
containers of Rigellian Ivory in there").
> Golan Class Merchant Fighter Carrier: Judging from the TMF and NPV of
Bug in the older spreadsheet again. NPV is in fact 257. For some reason I've
entered two FCS in the spreadsheet as well, whereas there isn't much point
giving it more than one... which means I have an extra mass to play with. I'll
have to rework this altogether. The external fighter racks I've
costed up simply as a fighter bay (mass-9, 27pts) since I give them an
identical functionality in a game.
> Sinai Class Light Merchant Cruiser: 3 Mass are unused. Should it be
Yep
Thanks for all that (I think). Looks like a repair session with Homepage is
required...
----------
> Från: Tony Francis <tony@glassghost.com>
> Screens 2 = 18 (17.6) mass = 54 pts
the design on the web page should be 612 pts :-/
> > Ramat David Class DN is NPV 511, not 499. It is equipped with 2
Ah, good.
> > CARRIERS
It's just that you describe the Mass 48 hangar on the Merkava as a
"hangar space-32" :-/
> > CRUISERS
OK.
> > Soltam Class CA: Shouldn't this ship have some FCs? <G> (Judging
:-)
> > ESCORT VESSELS
Yep.
> so I guess I'll make it 14, 47.
OK.
> > ASSAULT SHIPS
OK.
> > " Hanger Space-32; 2 x fighters groups plus 2 x TMF 10 shuttles"
As long as you do it the same way for all ships, I'm satisfied :-)
> > Shafrir Class Assault Lander: If this is a *lander*, I'd probably
OK. Remove 5 Cargo space for Partial streamlining, cost 126?
> > MERCHANTS AND FREIGHTERS
Somehow it doesn't feel right to me that commercial shipping lines -
*Jewish* commercial shipping lines, who have an age-old reputation to
live up (down?) to ;-) - would shell out a lot of cash for a system
which doesn't provide any real protection, when they could get at least far
better protection for a lower cost... <g>
> > Golan Class Merchant Fighter Carrier: Judging from the TMF and NPV
OK. The web page only says 1 FCS.
> whereas there isn't much point giving it more than one ... which
OK.
> Thanks for all that (I think).
<g> I did the same for Jon, though in that case it was prior to publishing
rather than afterwards <g>
Best wishes,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > > MERCHANTS AND FREIGHTERS
Also, a Shield is a device tht needs maintenance and power increasing
operating costs. Even if armor costed more, a merchant ship would probably go
for armor because of the lower operating costs.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > > CAPITAL SHIPS
Aha, so you are fallible after all ! ;-)
I think I'll go with the 4 FCS / 9 armour version. I like lots of FCS on
most ships (no point having loads of weapons if your one-and-only fire
control is kaput) but four should be plenty - don't often fire at more
than two targets anyway.
> It's just that you describe the Mass 48 hangar on the Merkava as a
To be corrected... I'll use the Merkava convention (ie usable hanger space as
opposed to hull space occupied).
> OK. Remove 5 Cargo space for Partial streamlining, cost 126?
I'd say yes, but I've just read Thomas Barclay's complete redesign of the
ship so I might go with that - once you've proof-read the design, of
course
:-)
> Somehow it doesn't feel right to me that commercial shipping lines -
Moving dangerously close to stereotyping there...
However, consider me convinced.
> > Thanks for all that (I think).
Most mistakes were due to errors in typing / copying, rather than
calculations (although you have helped me knock a couple of bugs out of the
spreadsheet). What I really need is a facility that guarantees no errors
between spreadsheet design and HTML output... have to get to grips with Excels
HTML exporter.
Cheers
> Tony Francis wrote:
> > > > CAPITAL SHIPS
<G> I freely admit that as soon as I realize I've screwed up <G>
> I think I'll go with the 4 FCS / 9 armour version. I like lots of FCS
OK.
> > It's just that you describe the Mass 48 hangar on the Merkava as a
> space as opposed to hull space occupied).
Thanks :-)
> > OK. Remove 5 Cargo space for Partial streamlining, cost 126?
It looks fine, yes.
> > Somehow it doesn't feel right to me that commercial shipping lines
That's why I put in the ;-) <g> But I have a healthy respect for the
Israeli defence industry, and I don't think Jewish civilian ship builders
would be that much less thorough in their analyses.
> However, consider me convinced.
:-)
> > > Thanks for all that (I think).
There's no way to guarantee the absence of transmission errors, particularly
when MS software is involved... Having other people
double-check things is probably the most effective solution, but even
so you always find *something* when you first open the printed
product/watch the web page after it's up :-(