Okay, I've finally gotten around to actually setting up a site for my "Far
Stars Union" for Full Thrust. Nothing fancy (by that I mean it's REALLY
basic)--just some history, high level organization, navy force level,
and some FB designs (more designs coming, but my system didn't want to
download
some of the stuff I'd e-mailed myself...).
Oh yes, the address--
http://hometown.aol.com/rwhofrich/myhomepage/games.html
If you have any comments, feel free to drop me a note at rwhofrich@aol.com or
hofrich1ter@vdot.state.va.us.
I've scratch-built my Far Stars Fleet from plastic sprues and assorted
bits
and pieces, though the fighters are GHQ Harpoon 1/2400 scale land-based
strike planes (cheaper than most folk's sci fi products--at about $8 for
36 fighters) and some light ships (frigates and destroyer escorts) are
Starblazers Terran Navy ships.
Rob
ps--Also, it looks like I will not be going to Coldwars this year--I've
got
another child in my wife's "oven" right now--and saving $ has priority
over
going gaming--so I won't get the chance to run any GZG stuff there. But
hey, every silver cloud has a little grey in it!
> Rob Hofrich wrote:
> Okay, I've finally gotten around to actually setting up a site for my
I must say that it's very refreshing to see a minor state which hasn't
built a score of capital ships rivalling the FSE gigants ;-) (You know
who you are...)
A few comments about the designs published on the page so far:
* The TMF and cost of the Sierra-class frigate both suggest that it
lacks an FTL drive. An FTL ship with the same weapons and armour would be TMF
21, have four hull boxes and cost 71 (or 2100t and 710MUcr, respectively).
* However I try, I can't get the cost of the Foxtrot-class DH to more
than 131 (or 1310 MUcr). I also think that its crews are a bit unfair when
comparing it to the Echo; although its weak hull makes it die slightly faster
than the Echo its armour actually allows it to keep its weapons firing
somewhat longer than the Echo. 'Course, the crews might
prefer to survive rather than go down firing 'til the end ;-)
* The cost of the Fair Oaks-class support carrier seems to include a
single fighter squadron. The ship itself only costs 266 (ie, 2660MUcr).
Given the Union's history of war with the FSE and fairly strong ties to
the NSL, I find the extensive use of screens a bit surprising -
especially on unarmoured Weak hulls (eg the carriers) and very small ships
(like the Echo and Foxtrot destroyers). In both cases an equivalent Mass of
armour would give better protection, particularly against FSE missiles.
Comments?
Best wishes,
Okay, I must do a mea culpa and accept responsibility for some messed up
ship displays-I will post the updated versions (correcting the items
mentioned by OO) soon-hopefully before the end of this coming weekend.
As for the other stuff-
RE number of capital ships: I was actually going to originally give the FSU
even fewer vessels until I realized that from a manpower perspective, the FT
battlecruisers only use up the manpower equivalent of a present day SSN, with
the lighter ships requiring even less. That sort of changed my mind.
My original write-up for the Romanov Hegemony (back before I discovered
that someone else had already done them) was a fleet that only consisted of
one battledreadnought, five battleships, three battlecruisers, six escort
carriers, and a bunch of smaller stuff-basically assuming that their
persistence on the interstellar scene was based upon their ability to counter
the ESU with alliances (in other words, the NAC and NSL).
RE general vessel design philosophy (weak hulls, lack of armor, use of screens
on light units):
The Revenge-class carriers are all OLD and have been rebuilt so many
times
that I wanted to show a design/hull that had just been pushed beyond its
limits-hence the weak hulls. As for the Virginia-that one was modified
so extensively from its original configuration that I figured the hull would
be substantially weaker than when originally built. In each of these cases,
the vessel was a carrier, and so, based upon the fighter theories espoused by
the USN, shouldn't actually be placed in the line of battle. As for the
Echo/Foxtrot designs and the use of screens instead of armor-while the
nation started out as a breakaway from the NSL, most of the Navy folks are
Anglian-descended, and tend to think more like the NAC Admiralty than
the NSL. The reasons screens were used on the escorts are:
1. because of the "big ship" thinking of the Brass runs up against the limited
shipyard capability that the nation has. In other words, it's a
prestige thing-vessels with screens are OBVIOUSLY more important than
those
without ;-)
2. armor wasn't used extensively because armor has to be repaired
between battles-which could take yard time, while screens (unless they
are knocked out) continue to function. Think of this as a strategic reason,
not a tactical one; and finally 3. the point defense capability of the FSU
fleet is pretty good (much better than standard designs as most vessels have
more PD than equivalent FB units and many have ADFC, contributing to the
protection of their
squadron-mates, not to mention the fighters), passive defenses are seen
as the primary method for protecting against beams, while PD handles the
missiles.
The item one must keep in mind is that the FSU is definitely a
third-rate
power and their conflicts with major powers to date have been tertiary (or at
most secondary) sideline affairs. Massed capital ship actions are not just
rare, they are EXTREMELY RARE! Usually it's a couple of BC or a light
carrier and escorts per side-and that's considered a major battle by the
FSU. That's why just one obsolete dreadnought can be such a big factor in the
fighting out in this far reach of human space. Or that's how I see it, anyway.
To sort of sum this up-the designs presented were not intended to be the
most efficient nor necessarily the best for use in tactical
situations-like
most real-world vessels, their designs are based upon national
production capabilities, the changing whims of Admiralty, strategic as well as
tactical considerations, and just plain silliness (in a few instances). I
appreciate the comments though and will make the changes referenced above
soon!
Robert W. Hofrichter (who usually posts from rwhofrich@aol.com)
[quoted original message omitted]
> Hofrichter, Robert W. wrote:
Taking the summary first:
> To sort of sum this up-the designs presented were not intended to be
Good reasons :-) The background description suggested it, which is why
I only found them "a bit surprising". I was mainly curious if they were weak
by intent or by accident; now I know it was intentional <G>
A few comments to the comments:
> RE general vessel design philosophy (weak hulls, lack of armor, use
> As for the Virginia-that one was modified so extensively from its
She has a pretty powerful beam armaments for a ship not supposed to be in the
line of battle, though. While this makes her able to defend herself when
attacked, it'll make it very tempting for the admiral to use
her as a reserve - a role her hull doesn't really allow her to play :-(
(Says the one who regularly uses beam-heavy, extremely fast,
weak-hulled ships... I know from first-hand experience how fast they
can go BOOM if they stray too close to the enemy :-/ )
> As for the Echo/Foxtrot designs and the use of screens instead of
<argh> Typical RN thinking, yes :-( I've recently aired my opinions on
the NAC design doctrines; I'm not going to do it again...
> 2. armor wasn't used extensively because armor has to be repaired
OTOH, armour is more likely to allow the ship to limp home for repairs at all.
Strategically, it is much easier to repair a damaged ship than
it is to replace a destroyed one :-)
> 3. the point defense capability of the FSU fleet is pretty good
ADFC is powerful, but not nearly as reliable as armour. It only takes one
missile on target to really ruin a Foxtrot, and, well... The local
standard SM tactics is to shoot up any small-to-medium-sized unit which
looks like having an ADFC or looks like a Banzai Jammer, and *then*
launch missiles to mop up what's left :-/
Later,