-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
just been looking at the full thrust ships in the catalogue, and am idly
contemplating using them for the vac-branch for my SG stuff :)
Nw, I'm using NAC for my SG games, but can't say I much like the NAC designs
for FT much; the bridges (?) extended on long necks strike me as too StarTrek,
and I can't imagine why anyone'd build a spaceship with such
an obvious structural problem-waiting-to-happen. (Correct me if there is
a very good reason for the long necks; i'm mildly curious)
I like the looks of the NSL and FSE ships. Is it remotely possible to use
either and 'pretend' they're canon NAC with NAC specs or would this be
ludicrous? (I'm not too bothered here, I wouldn't much mind using the stats
for the FSE designs or NSL designs)
I haven't played FT and only have the basic rules. So I'm curious if either
NAC, NSL or FSE has very significant disadvantages to be aware of?
And now, back to the topic of the post... Are there any ship designs that are
specifically designed as marine interface operation ships? I'm thinking
support for landing operations, orbital fire support etc? Mmm. What's the
largest class of ship that can do atmospherical maneuvering?
Cheers,
> At 10:36 AM +0200 6/7/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
I see the design as offering optimum fields of fire for the weapon and sensor
arrays. A heavily armoured neck is very hard to hit compared to the rest of
the vessel and probably ends up being just as resilient.
Coincidentally, I have a easy conversion for making a Gator Carrier. You need:
an Inflexible CVL a Bridge and neck section (I end up calling these spades)
from a Vandenberg a wings and things small wing (the one without the weapons
arrays and with the underside spinal truss...)
Assemble the CVL as normal sans the flight deck. (you're operating small
shuttles and larger LSU (Landing Shuttle Utilitys size 5) for getting troops
down in either tactical form.
Attach the neck section of the spade to the Port side upper hull section on
the beveled corner.
Undercut the wing projection with a cut out in its base (note the lines that
run along its length) so it has better fit against the front of the right side
of the launch bay. This gives you a launch rail for the fighter group that
supports the assault operation and gives your close air support marines a
place to launch.
I run the mass close to the same as an Inflexible, and end up with a good
sized assault group. So far I've built three of these...
Hope you like ASCI art...
|---------\ __ _--__
| \ |_ __- <-- attached and bent strut
spade
-----------------------------\/ --
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |----------
| | __| <-- ground attack fighter
| |___----- flight deck
-----------------------------/
| /__
|---------/
> I like the looks of the NSL and FSE ships. Is it remotely possible to
That will confuse your opponents...
> I haven't played FT and only have the basic rules. So I'm curious if
Depends on your play doctrine. NAC seems to have the most well rounded ships.
Generally fast, well armed, and defended. NSL are amazingly slow and
ponderous. FSE are faster than the NSL and on par with the NAC (BDNs and SDNs
excepted generally) but rely on ordinance armament, they have lots of throw
weight and then run dry and have to run. I'd hate to have to press home a long
term battle with FSE ships....
> And now, back to the topic of the post... Are there any ship designs
What you choose to pay for. I figure you don't want to go over some nebulous
number. Though I've begun to think that for truely effective amphib operations
you're going to need landing ships that can get down to off load the really
heavy stuff. Something akin to the LSTs. The Shuttles that GZG makes (they
have wings and some smallish fin like projections) would make good landing
ships. Obviously these go in after the theatre air defense environment has
been dealt with.
G'day
> I like the looks of the NSL and FSE ships.
Once you buy them you can do anything you like with them (though if taking
them to a tourney or something you may want to clue up your opponents first).
> So I'm curious if either NAC, NSL or FSE
NAC seem like good all round, but I've yet to actually see them not suffer
from Jack of all trades and master of none syndrome (ESU seem to make a better
hack of that).
NSL are slow, but do actually seem to do OK in the hands of beginners (then
again we play vector so being painfully slow could be more of a problem in
cinematic)
FSE take a while to learn how to use with success as they're very much shoot
and scoot, if you haven't done the majority of you're needed damage
before you run out of salvos/fighters then you're probably not going to
pull it off (except if you're playing in cinematic on a fixed map and you lure
your opponents into running themselves into walls).
There's been a few threads on the pros-and-cons of the various fleets,
it may pay to trawl the archives.
Cheers
Beth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Ryan Gill wrote:
> At 10:36 AM +0200 6/7/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
I was thinking of very basic things like structural integrity during
high-G maneuvering; never mind enemy fire ;)
> Coincidentally, I have a easy conversion for making a Gator Carrier.
You need:
<snip> Interesting stuff; worth considering if I do end up going for NAC
:)
Cheers,
Derk
> >I like the looks of the NSL and FSE ships. Is it remotely possible to
Except that nobody's been playing FT around here, yet;)
> >I haven't played FT and only have the basic rules. So I'm curious if
Mmm, ok.
> >And now, back to the topic of the post... Are there any ship designs
Mmm.
> >What's the largest class of ship that can do atmospherical
Okay... I was just thinking on some pulp SF I reread recently for scenario
ideas (Battlecruiser Shenandoah), where the capital ship is taken into low
atmospheric maneuvering; allowed for close fire support, but mainly scared
everyone's pants off (including the skipper)
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Beth Fulton wrote:
> G'day
G'nite (being kept awake by a serious cold and coughing fits.. But at least I
get to reply quickly;))
> >I like the looks of the NSL and FSE ships.
I'm aware there's no fascist shrink-wrap license involved here, I was
mainly wondering to what extent the models reflect the actual ship's
capabilities.
<snip helpful explanation of navy ads/disads>
> There's been a few threads on the pros-and-cons of the various fleets,
Thanks for the info, and I'll just do that:)
Cheers,
> At 2:44 AM +0200 6/8/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Well, they've fixed the inertia thing partly remember. Add to that the shape
is going to lend itself to a nice long rotational inertia...nice steady ships.
Not nearly as twitchy as those FSE
craft...
> Except that nobody's been playing FT around here, yet ;)
Just wait. You'll hook some...
> Okay... I was just thinking on some pulp SF I reread recently for
Also read Honor Harrington by David Weber and John Ringo's two books Hymn
Before Battle and Gust Front...