Ok, I have reviewing The Mass from the FT book compared to the FTFB mass. I
have come to the conclusion that my first sets of numbers were incorrect. The
corrected numbers are listed below.
Scout 7 mass Corvette 18 mass Frigate 24 mass Destroyer 35 mass Lt. Cruiser 55
mass Escort Cruiser 64 mass Heavy Cruiser 90 mass BattleCruiser 110 mass
Battleship 134 mass BattleDreadnought 157 mass SuperDreadnought 248 mass
Strike Carrier 230 mass
> Steven wrote:
> I have come to the conclusion that my first sets of numbers were
I'd be interested in the rationale behind these numbers. Why did you choose
these values and why were you unhappy with the other set? Looks like a
reasonable starting point, though the biggies seem bit heavy compared to say
NAC?
12 Arapaho 18 Minerva 24 Tacoma 30 Ticonderoga DD 50 Huron CL 64 Furious CE 80
Vandenburg CA 106 Majestic BC 120 Victoria BB 140 Excalibur BDN 190 Valley
Forge SDN 140 Inflexible CVL 200 Ark Royal CV
> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Tim Jones wrote:
> Steven wrote:
Tim,
I took the 'official' ship examples from FT and compared them to the average
Mass of the same class in the FTFB, and came up with the difference. With this
difference I took the official KraVak mass listed in FTMT book and multiplied
them by this difference, to come up with this current target mass. My original
KraVak mass chart was just multiplying the FTMT mass by 2, which made them to
light.
Here is the differences from FT to FTFB:
Scout 1.75 Corvette 2.3 Frigate 2.0 Destroyer 2.2 Lt. Cruiser 2.3 Escort
Cruiser 2.3 Hvy Cruiser 2.5 BattleCruiser 2.5 Battleship 2.4 BDN 2.5 SDN 2.7
CVL 2.1 CVA 2.4