Right now I have a nice small fleet and am thinking of expanding it. I am
wondering what you would recommend for me to add. I don't have FB 1 yet, but
will order it at the same time as I get any more minis. All are FSE. Though
from what I've read FSE is not the fleet for me. NSL sounds more like what I
am looking for. Flying Bricks with lots o' guns. Started the fleet with a
Birthday present before FB1 came out and continued from there. I will probably
use NSL or Custom ships for my actual stats, but I want to maintain a
consistent look to my fleet.
My main opponent has a rather massive fleet of Phalons. He has Fleet Book 2.
His fleet includes at least 1 of almost every Phalon ship. Including 1 of each
of the 2 largest (SDN and CVA).
So what do I need? More escorts? More bruisers? A Death Star?
This is more a general "What should a fleet have" question then asking for
specific advice. I think...
Answer any way you want.
My List
3 Athena Class Corvettes
3 San Migel II class DD
2 San Migel DD (catalog says they are Trieste Super DDs now)
1 Suffren CL
1 Jerez CA ]=======
1 Ypres BC || This here is my Core fleet. I think I
may need a bit more in here.
1 Roma BB ]=======
1 Jeanne D'Arc CVA ]======= Not yet Painted/fully assembled. Still
looks really impressive. Not as impressive as seeing 5 large Phalon Cap Ships
in formation, but nice nonetheless.
> My main opponent has a rather massive fleet of Phalons.
So you mean those ships actually sell? Huh....
Damo
Having played against NSL, I can tell you what normally hurts me;)
Make sure you have the cruisers with ADFC, especially since NSL is typically
slow maneuvering and easy prey for placed ordance (SML, PBL.) Next fill in you
capital ships. They have a bunch of beams and can absorb plenty of damage.
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Damond Walker wrote:
> > My main opponent has a rather massive fleet of Phalons.
Sure they do...
http://wind.prohosting.com/~warbard/ftgallery.html
.. has my PH squadron, and some FT scenery.
I've currently got an NSL squadron on the painting table - much more
conventional!
> Jalinth wrote:
> Right now I have a nice small fleet and am thinking of expanding it. I
Rather depends on whether you're playing campaigns or one-off scenarios,
which point system you're using, etc., how much money you feel like spending,
etc.
To give you proportions, in 1939, the Royal Navy had
15 BB + 9 building
6 CV + 6
15 CA
40 CL + 8
6 CE + 16 ("anti aircraft cruisers")
113 DDH + 24 ("modern" destroyers)
68 DD (WW1 vintage)
bear in mind that the DDs were largely for antisubmarine work and unless
you've got cloaking rules in effect, there aren't really any
sub-equivalents or torpedo boats.
For facing Phalons, I think you'll probably want ADFC escorts and fighters,
for shooting down plasma bursts, but YMMV.
> At 4:00 PM -0500 1/3/04, Jalinth wrote:
[snip]
> My List
Get more Corvettes. You should have several divisions of escorts for every
Cruiser and Battle Ship
> 3 San Migel II class DD
I like the traditional Role of several Basic DDs with a CL DDL (Destroyer
Leader) as the division flag. I have somewhere around 5 DD divisions with
neary that many DDH/DDLs as division flag ships.
> 2 San Migel DD (catalog says they are Trieste Super DDs now)
I've put together several CLs and CAs with smaller and larger versions kit
bashed as variants or other classes that develop from those classes.
> 1 Jerez CA ]=======
> 1 Ypres BC || This here is my Core fleet. I think I
The thing I don't like about the typical FT BC is that they're the same speed
as the BBs in the same fleet. BCs should be faster that the BBs and as fast as
the lighter stuff. So, I made up two BCs (Black Prince class) from some
Ticonderoga hulls with BB 'banjos' (From some NAC carrier bits I stripped).
> 1 Roma BB ]=======
A Battle Line is always impressive. 2-3 BBs with
Several SDNs make a dreadful statement.
> 1 Jeanne D'Arc CVA ]======= Not yet Painted/fully assembled. Still
Several Carriers with some lighter versions are something I made up. I also
made up some odd kind of escort carrier with a NAC DD 'banjo' stuck off to the
side that makes an excellent Gator Carrier. It has a larger front bay and a
tiny fighter launch panel made from a wing's and things kit.
Some auxilliary ships are also a good idea.
> 1 Jerez CA ]=======
> 1 Ypres BC || This here is my Core fleet. I think
> I may need a bit more in here.
Add more Jerez class CAs to your fleet over Ypres class BCs. The Jerez has
comparable beam weaponry and has an additional salvo missile launcher. Ypres
adds a screen generator, a single PDS, and a bit more hull mass, but the
survivability gain doesn't make up for the missile salvo launcher loss.
Maybe, like on a lot of the Stargrunt2 II sites, we should develop some TO&E
for the Full Thrust fleets and races.
It would be a great help and guide line for those of us just starting to make
your fleets.
Thanks,
If I was to use 'Canon' Aliens for a fleet, I think I'd use Phalons.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:08:29 -0500 "Damond Walker" <damosan@comcast.net>
writes:
> My main opponent has a rather massive fleet of Phalons.
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Ryan Gill
> The thing I don't like about the typical FT BC is
That may date back to the FT2 construction system when
a fast capital-class ship wasn't cost-effective. The
big step up between the cruiser and capital classes made the justification of
any light capital vessel difficult. The construction system was fixed in FB1.
> BCs should be faster that the BBs and as fast as the
I think the traditional niche was "faster than a BB and sufficiently nasty to
see off anything else".
> If I was to use 'Canon' Aliens for a fleet, I think I'd use Phalons.
They do have some cool tech...though I find myself drawn to the Kravak for
some reason...
BUT FIRST comes the completion of my IJN and ESU fleets.
Damo
> At 2:42 PM +0000 1/4/04, CS Renegade wrote:
Actually, they were built w/ FB1 specs under the NAC guidelines.
> > BCs should be faster that the BBs and as fast as the
Exactly, either designed to swoop in and blow the crap out of something your
bbs couldn't normally catch (commerce raiding) or as fast scouts that can beat
the crap out of CAs that are normally being used to scout your force.
The critical thing to remember is that they;re not line of battle ships and
will get their arses handed to them if used as such. The two that I have make
a great flying division from my battle line. With a big board, they're great
at zipping around and taking choice shots. Think of a larger Ticonderoga with
two class 3's in 4 arc mounts (more arc for flexibility under the higher G
movement), more armor, more hull boxes and more pds.
Hi there,
Lot's of great suggestions about fleet composition from other people
out there -- I'd just like to add one note. Remember, whatever you get,
you'll have FUN with. You'll like painting those ships and playing
with those ships. If you don't like the look/feel of a ship, then
buying it to just fill your order of battle seems kind of silly to me.
In the end, it's just a game, and if you're not having fun, then why are you
playing it?
JGH
> Jalinth wrote:
Though
> from what I've read FSE is not the fleet for me. NSL sounds more like
> On 3 Jan 2004 at 19:08, Damond Walker wrote:
> So you mean those ships actually sell? Huh....
Right now I have four fleets in various states of painting: FSE, NAC, and two
Valiant fleets (human and alien). If I go for a fifth fleet, it will most
likely be Phalon.
Of course, those on the playtest list can probably guess that I have ulterior
motives, my game of preference being SG2 and all...
> --- Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com> wrote:
-------
I will second this! If you do not like the looks
of the ship, don't use it! It is not nc3essary for
every squadron of a navy to have every type of ship in the fleet.
> Jalinth wrote:
All are FSE. Though
> > from what I've read FSE is not the fleet for me.
> Of course, those on the playtest list can probably guess that I have
That's just mean teasing those of us not on the playtest list like
that.....
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:08:31AM -0800, John Leary wrote:
> I will second this! If you do not like the looks
And for that matter, if you don't like the stats of the ship, rewrite them!
The games produced by GZG should not be read on the light cast by
that _other_ company that says you can only put a unit on the table if
you have the Official Miniature for it...
About 2/3 of my ships are GZG, and they all do duty as whatever fleet I
happen to be playing that day.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> The thing I don't like about the typical FT BC is
This is true for the ESU and NAC, as well as for those custom fleets whose
designers aren't as picky with their definitions as you are :-/ Jalinth
was talking about the *NSL* stats though, and the NSL BCs have twice the
thrust rating of the NSL capitals... and he's using the *FSE* models, and the
FSE BC also has a higher thrust rating than the FSE BB, SDN and carriers
(though no higher than the FSE BDN, which is in essence a *very* big
battlecruiser) :-/
Regards,
> Roger B-W wrote:
> And for that matter, if you don't like the stats of the ship, rewrite
So far most of my GZG playtest games haven't featured any GZG models at all,
and even when I have used GZG models they've virtually never represented the
ships the models depict (as in the recent battles against Charles Taylor,
where we used a mix of GZG KV, ICE Silent Death and GW Space Fleet ships to
represent ESU and ORC fleets)...
<g>
Later,
So far most of my GZG playtest games haven't featured any GZG models at all,
and even when I have used GZG models they've virtually never represented the
ships the models depict (as in the recent battles against Charles Taylor,
where we used a mix of GZG KV, ICE Silent Death and GW Space Fleet ships to
represent ESU and ORC fleets)...
<g>
Well the two age old factors are at play here one most gamers love to add
their own thoughts to the mix and two the pocketbook....)
With that said my NSL, NAC,FSE,and UN fleets are pretty much built stock with
all the required types.But even there I couldn't help but add to them with
ships that "looked" like they fit and did jobs that the fleet books didn't
really cover. As an example I use some Bab5 Earth Force ships in my NSL fleet,
and a few other odds and ends in other fleets.
Again my rule of thumb is if the model looks to be of similar lines to the
main fleet it'll pass muster with a good paint job..)
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Ryan Gill
> The thing I don't like about the typical FT BC is
> At 2:42 PM +0000 1/4/04, CS Renegade wrote:
> That may date back to the FT2 construction system when
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Ryan Gill
> Actually, they were built w/ FB1 specs under the NAC guidelines.
I don't quite follow. I checked FB1 before posting, and only the NAC BC
Majestic seems to have the speed problem. The NSL are all slower than their
opposite numbers but the Maximillian and the Richthofen can keep up with NSL
destroyers, the FSE BC Ypres is as quick as any cruiser and almost all of the
ESU designs travel at the same speed. Four very distinct design philosophies.
> BCs should be faster that the BBs and as fast as the
I've always thought the ideal raider to be the pre-war
French supercruisers; long range, high speed, mediocre guns and no armour. As
fighting ships they were useless.
BC raiders are pests simply because it takes so much effort to put them down.
It's not the impact they have on shipping that's the problem (though that
can't be ignored), it's the commitment required to find them, trap them and
then sink them.
> The critical thing to remember is that they're
But here the BB is not the heaviest vessel around. There are also BDNs and
SDNs to worry about. For that matter, defensively there's little difference
between the Majestic and the Victoria. The BB has two PTs in place of a
missile launcher and an extra B3 so I took
the Majestic to be a cut-price BB. In a one-on-one
encounter she's inferior, but put equal points on the table and that's a
different matter.
Nathan "now a veteran of North Cape" Girdler
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:29:39PM -0000, CS Renegade wrote:
This becomes even more important the closer you get to the real world. Sure,
only one merchant ship in ten travelling the Spica Corridor vanishes... but
the captains and crews are starting to think that one in ten ain't such good
odds, and maybe they'll go the long way round with your precious war
supplies...
> --- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Historically, a battlecruiser (BC) was armed about the same as a battleship
(caliber & number of guns), sacrificing armor for addional powerplant.
A Fast Battleship, like the US Iowa class, had similar armor to a battleship,
but a reduce main battery to allow displacement for additional engineering.
A Large Cruiser (CB), like the US Alaska class, had a main battery much more
powerful than contemporary heavy cruisers, but smaller than contemporary BBs,
and defenses equal to CAs.
Pre-WW2 german panzerschiffen (lit. "armored ships"), dubbed "pocket
battleships" in the British press, fall into this last category.
J
> At 11:29 PM +0000 1/4/04, CS Renegade wrote:
Granted, but I look at thrust 6 as being marginally fast and only thrust 8 as
bloody fast. Most capital ships seem to move about at thrust 4 and the NSL
heavies poke along at thrust 2. A thrust 6 BC seems the way to go, no matter
what so as to be able to escape. I'm very up on the NAC craft, and don't quite
recall the froggie ships.
> I've always thought the ideal raider to be the pre-war
Problem is, they need to have some survivability so as to handle a few hits
before they get going in the opposite direction and beat feet.
> BC raiders are pests simply because it takes so much
Yep. That's why I put a bit of time into making some. Several (real) BCs and
some Ticonderogas
skulking about the FSE/ESU's shipping lanes would
have to hurt.
> But here the BB is not the heaviest vessel around.
The thing is, under 1901-1945 construction, many
BBs fall under the SDN or DN focus what with their size as compared to the WWI
and interwar years BBs. Almost twice the displacement. So, it's not far off.
Some BBs are able to hang with
the SDNs but their overall under-gunned. The big
difference being the larger numbers of class 3s (usually) vs larger guns on
the 'wet' SDNs vs the BBs (WWI)
> Nathan "now a veteran of North Cape" Girdler
> At 5:34 PM -0800 1/4/04, Jared Hilal wrote:
A lightly armored Battleship with speed instead of protection.
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_bc.htm#lex-cl
> A Fast Battleship, like the US Iowa class, had similar armor to a
It also, upped the ante for Battleship sizes and
armor (57.5K tons full load w/ 3 triple 16"
turrets @ 33 knots) in the process (ie North
Carolinas at 44.5k tons w/ same main battery @ 33
knots. What's missing are the comparable US Battleships of the Montana Class
(70K tons full
load w/ 4 triple 16" turrets @ 28 knots).
see
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm
> A Large Cruiser (CB), like the US Alaska class, had a main battery much
And these @ 34k tons 3 triple 12" guns and a 33 knot speed were designed to
hunt down the 8" gunned cruisers that were expected to be commerce raiding.
Andrew Toppan calls them "big cruisers".
see
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_bc.htm#ala-cl
> Pre-WW2 german panzerschiffen (lit. "armored ships"), dubbed "pocket
Which is why 2 or three cruisers could make a Panzerschiffen run as it wasn't
an unfair fight.
Commerce raiding as the sole method of waging naval war clearly doesn't
work(See WWII Atlantic). However, using it as an addition to your already
effective battle line does work (see the Pacific)
> Warren Shultzaberger wrote:
Is this kinda what you are looking for?
Yepper! That's exactly what I was looking for!
I knew one of you GZG list genius would have thought of it already.
Thanks! Warren
> -----Original Message-----
http://www.bcpl.net/~indy/full-thrust/fleet-rosters.html
Mk
If you are after the flying brick with loads o guns, try using a B5wars nova
dreadnought. The B5 earthforce ships all look very NSL to me, and I use them
as such. All those big guns I have as B3s, making the thing come out to 330
mass (it has a weaker hull than standard NSL, to represent a older design that
has been refitted) with 1 fighter squadren aboard.
BIF
> Right now I have a nice small fleet and am thinking of expanding it. I
Though
> from what I've read FSE is not the fleet for me. NSL sounds more like
If you are after the flying brick with loads o guns, try using a B5wars nova
dreadnought. The B5 earthforce ships all look very NSL to me, and I use them
as such. All those big guns I have as B3s, making the thing come out to 330
mass (it has a weaker hull than standard NSL, to represent a older design that
has been refitted) with 1 fighter squadren aboard.
BIF
I do the same, the EA stuff mixes in well with NSL.......)