This is based off of looking at the miniature. This thing looks like a US govt
republican (IE, big contributions from all the military manufactureres)
committee designed it. There's more pork in this thing than in the sausage the
US collectively had for breakfast.
Anyway, there are two things I don't like, one is the weak hull, however...
First, if you don't give it a weak hull it tops the scales at 351 without any
armor. That would be OK EXCEPT this things feels lighter than my FSE SDN.
Second, it is obviously a dispersed structure. Those big wings are vulnerable
points.
The other thing I didn't like is I couldn't fit fighter groups on without
pushing it over the edge. Anyway, here it is:
UNSC SDN-X
Hull Displacement 290 Point Cost 1057
Hull Strength Weak (14/14/13/13)
Hull Armor 10 Streamlinin None Thrust 4
FTL Capable
Passive Sensors Active Sensors Superior
ECM Area-Effect
Screen Level 2 Fire Control System (5) ADFC (1) PDS (12)
MT Missiles (3) EMP MT Missiles (3) Needle
Pulse Torpedo Launcher FP F
Pulse Torpedo Launcher FP F
Pulse Torpedo Launcher FP F
Pulse Torpedo Launcher F FS
Pulse Torpedo Launcher F FS
Pulse Torpedo Launche F FS SML (2)
SM Magazine Cap: 12 (6 / 4 ER salvos)
Beam / 3 FP F FS
Beam / 3 F FS
Beam / 3 FP F
Beam / 2 FP F FS
Beam / 2 FP F AP
Beam / 2 F FS AS
PDS (12)
> On 4-Nov-99 at 12:15, Roger Books (books@mail.state.fl.us) wrote:
Ooops
> PDS (12)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The second set of 12 PDS's is a copying error.
> Roger Books wrote:
A few comments:
> Second, it is obviously a dispersed structure. Those big wings
Screen-2 on an armoured Weak hulls is the best you can get for a
Thrust-4, FTL capable ship... provided the enemy uses a reasonable
amount of beams, of course <g>
> The other thing I didn't like is I couldn't fit fighter groups on
Should be Weak (15/15/14/14)
> Hull Armor 10
With that many PDS, you could use more than one ADFC... particularly if
the enemy is uncouth enough to attack the smaller ships :-/
> MT Missiles (3) EMP
I'd rather just say "MT missiles (6)"; missile racks tend to be able to carry
more than one type each.
> Pulse Torpedo Launcher FP F
Arcs?
> SM Magazine Cap: 12 (6 / 4 ER salvos)
Looks OK. If you're worried about the mass - the FSE SDN is only 250
Mass, and you say the UNSC one feels lighter - I guess some of the PDS
and/or part of the SM battery could go. Which weapons do you equate
with the twin SMLs, BTW?
Later,
> On 4-Nov-99 at 16:14, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
Miscounted on AO.:(
> > Screen Level 2
I considered this, but was trying to conserve mass. It also fits in with the
UNSC mission parameters, I would guess often this ship will be operating as
the sole UNSC ship in with one of the nationalities. It's nice if you can
defend the others, but you know full well they aren't going to be worried
about covering your rear if it is inconvenient. This is an
"excuse". Well, I gave your destroyer 4 PDS's, that was all I could
lend so I used the rest on myself. Poor ship design.:)
> > SML (2)
Fore/left side and Fore/right side.
> > SM Magazine Cap: 12 (6 / 4 ER salvos)
There are things that look like scoops on both sides of the main hull, they
are divided into 6 sections which led me to believe they were salvo missle
launchers, although I guess they could be B5 style fighter silos.
Thanks for the reply. The big question is, does it feel like a design by
committee while still being a worthwhile ship?