If anyone has Islamic Federation ship designs, let me know. I will be posting
them on my web site (mainly to provide explosions of the receiving end of
Alarishi beams and Templar torpedoes, but anyone else is welcome to blow them
up, too). My concept is that the IF uses fast, small ships, no FTL, with salvo
missiles (FSE influence); small-to-medium carriers carrying Fast
Fighters; and FTL tugs. The idea is to have a swarm of skirmishers which can't
stand up to close range slugging, but can harass you to death if you're not
careful. Seems to suit the Arabic/Turkish style.
<i>Turcoman</i> class CL
Displacement: 4000 tonnes Cost: 1650 MUcr Hull Type: Weak (Integrity 8) Crew:
11 officer, 29 ratings (Crew Factor 2)
Armament: 1 SML (arcs FA, FP, AP) + 10 ton magazine (usually 2 ER + 2
standard), 2 x Class 1 Beam Defenses: 2 Point Defense System Sensors suite:
Standard sensors; 1 fire control system Drive systems: Main Drive rating 6
Comment: The mainstay of the IF fleet. The Turcoman depends on Jump tugs or
tenders to deliver it to the battle area. IF doctrine calls for the Turcoman
and similar ships to operate in squadrons, hovering at the edge of missile
range. Variations: Reduce magazine capacity 2 tonnes in exchange for armor.
Others TBA Building: Unknown
Following your design philosophy, I think the following would fit:
IF Tulwar class Heavy Destroyer (DDH) Displacement: 5000 tonnes Cost: 176 MUcr
Hull Type: Weak (Integrity 10) Crew: 13 officer, 37 ratings (Crew Factor 3)
Drive systems: Main Drive rating 6 Sensors suite: Standard sensors; 1 fire
control system Armament:
2 SMR(er) (FP/F/FS)
2 SMR(std) (FP/F/FS)
2 Submunition Packs (F) or 2 Class-1 batteries
1 Class-2 battery (FP/F/FS)
Defenses: 2 Point Defense Systems Comments: A fast strike destroyer, it is
capable of unloading it's entire salvo of missiles in one pass, reducing
loiter time in the face
of heavy opposition. It's most common use is as either a picket ship
or a screen to protect heavier assets or the tender.
IF Arabian class Battledreadnought Tender (BDN-T ?)
Displacement: 15,000 tonnes Cost: MUcr Hull Type: Average (Integrity 45) Crew:
28 officers, 122 ratings (Crew Factor 8) Drive systems: Tender FTL Drive
(20,000 ton rating (Mass 200)) Main Drive rating: 4 Sensors suite: Standard
sensors; 2 fire control systems Armament:
SMR (std) (FP/F/FS)
Class-2 battery (FP/F/FS)
Class-2 battery (AP/FP/F)
Class-2 battery (F/FS/AS)
Defences: Area Defence Firecontrol 6 Point Defence Systems Comments: Capable
of carrying 5 Turcoman CL or 4 Tulwar DDH, the Arabian is the last word in
heavy attack vessels, capable of spawning 102 missiles in it's first salvo,
with the redundancy of multiple vessels to overwhelm any remaining defences in
close. Variations: The SMR, ADFC & 3 PDS can be replaced with 1 SML with a 6
mass magazine.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
- Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".
[quoted original message omitted]
> My concept is that the IF uses fast, small ships, no FTL, with salvo
I like the concept, but would question the "no FTL." Skirmishers have to have
quite a bit of independence to work well.
Other than that, go with it.
> IF Tulwar class Heavy Destroyer (DDH)
Exactly. However, Jared's spreadsheet says this is 52 mass stuffed into a 50
mass hull. Delete the Sub Packs?
> IF Arabian class Battledreadnought Tender (BDN-T ?)
Nice. We should probably switch the DDH and CL designations, since the "CL" is
40 mass and the "DDH" is 50. Or maybe I should look at my list and see what 40
mass ought to be called.
I said:
> >My concept is that the IF uses fast, small ships, no FTL, with salvo
Schoon said:
> I like the concept, but would question the "no FTL." Skirmishers have
I decided to forgo FTL for several reasons: 1) I envision FTL components as
being expensive and not easily maintained; the IF, who may be a little short
in technicians compared to, say, the NAC, will want to keep FTL components
away from the battle line.
2) I figure the individual planets are ruled by semi-autonomous emirs,
who will want to get the most bang for the buck. Many of these vessels will be
in a system defense posture most of the time. 3) I want the IF to have the
operational vulnerability of a tender that must be protected. It may be 2 AU
away, but if they don't fight, they'll have to walk home. 4) It was an easy
way to give a cheap ship better thrust and a good weapons fit.
> Laserlight <laserlight@cwix.com> wrote:
> I decided to forgo FTL for several reasons:
OK, I'll buy that. How about non-FTL ships which use civillian tugs to
get
them where they need to set up - and then they stay there; system
defense.
> 2) I figure the individual planets are ruled by semi-autonomous emirs,
Yup.
> 3) I want the IF to have the operational vulnerability of a tender that
As above, I like a tender that's just as ramshackle as the rest of the fleet.
> 4) It was an easy way to give a cheap ship better thrust and a good
Watch that they don't unbalance in an action vs. an FTL fleet.
It's either 2 subpacs OR 2 class-1 beams. That's probably the extra
mass. I'm using hand calculations for this.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
- Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 05:00 PM 12/11/98 +1100, you wrote:
[snip]
Yup - checks out right with the <or> clause implemented. Here's the
output of the FBSB:
Mass = 50 MassLeft = 0 Cost = 176 Thrust = 6 FTL = Normal Streamlining = Not
Streamlined Hull = Fragile, Military CrewFactors = 3 DP = 5
---- Damage Row Breakdown ----
O*
O
*
*
> Laserlight wrote:
> 3) I want the IF to have the operational vulnerability of a tender
Which allows competent navies to 'cut them off at the pass'--their
raiders may shoot up their target, but we've got more targets than they
have raiders, and no one can afford to use light cruisers as one-shot
weapons.
Use Koukouzelis class Corvettes[1] (now up on website) to find the tenders,
and smash them while a smaller force delays the raiders.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >4) It was an easy way to give a cheap ship better thrust and a good
Not nearly as big a problem in FTFB as it was in FT2. The FTL drive is only
10% of the hull and it isn't very expensiv in points, so you don't gain that
much by removing it. Still, unless you actually pay for the
tender there'll be a problem in one-off battles.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Not nearly as big a problem in FTFB as it was in FT2. The FTL drive is
Actually you loose a bit--weapons are all more expensive than FTL. For
a System Defense conversion of most of my ships, I'm considering adding armor
in place of engines. Same cost.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
[On System Defence units]
> > Not nearly as big a problem in FTFB as it was in FT2. The FTL drive
For
> a System Defense conversion of most of my ships, I'm considering
Not what I was talking about. To get a fair comparision, you need to compare
ships with identical combat capabilities (ie, same number of damage boxes
(hull and armour taken together) and same armament); in this
case the non-FTL ships are cheaper than their star-faring siblings. You
compare ships with the same armament but different capacity, or the same
damage capacity but differently sized payloads; it sounds a bit like
comparing apples with melons to me :-)
Example:
Assume that you want a ship with Average hull, Thrust 6 and 20 Mass of
weapons, armour etc. With an FTL drive, this ship is 67 Mass (and costs
roughly 221 pts); without FTL you get by with a Mass 50 hull for roughly 170
points, but you've lost 5 hull boxes. If you want to regain the lost hull by
adding some armour, you need a Mass 58 hull (with 3 extra armour) costing
about 192 points. You've saved over 10% of the ship cost without losing any
combat capability (unless you count FTL as a "combat capability", of course!).
In FT2, OTOH, you needed a Mass 40 FTL ship to carry those 20 Mass of
weapons; (costs roughly 420 pts - Thrust-6 capitals are expensive...)
while a non-FTL ship would have to be Mass 27and cost roughly 195 pts.
You lose damage boxes in this case too, of course, but you also lose the
requirement to take a third treshold check (in this case, that is). The
cost saving, however, is over 50% of that of the original unit - quite
impressive even when you factor in its lower damage capacity. Depending
on how big the ships are you get different ratios, of course - much of
the saving in this example comes from the break point in engine cost between
Cruiser and Capital classes in FT2.
Regards,