It occours to me that with the changes brought about by the Fleet Book that
there are now innumerable 'styles' of ship that one could concentrate on. We
can go the NSL route and go for armor, beams, and no speed, or the FSE which
is dead opposite (BTW, Why, oh why did GZG
make the FSE models so darn cool? It's annoying--I won't play
Frenchmen but I really, really like the ships).
But has much thought been given as to what would be wanted if one had
the luxury to specialize _within_ one's fleet? I'm assuming multiple
capital ship construction yards and a good bit of resources. Let us
examine major areas of concern for the de-centralized space fleets:
Home Fleet: This would represent the main 'fleet' per se, the battleline and
carriers. Major striking arm, built from ground up with fleet battles in mind,
not independant operations. Primary focus is on Dreadnought classes and Fleet
Carriers, with escorts as appropriate.
Escorts will be designed for anti-fighter and capital ship strike
mission--speed is not too essential, given that they are tied to the
battleline anyway. May include independant destroyer and cruiser squadrons for
scouting. Missle armament would be a good idea given
that this force is not really into long-range, long-term missions with
no logistical support, as might be more common out on the frontier.
Commerce raiding: May be administratively part of above or of frontier fleets,
but has different enough requirements. Two major elements: "True"
battlecruisers (BBs with the armor and shields stripped in favor
of engines: The NAC BB minus armor and shields yields a BB-armed
thrust 6 ship with reasonable survivability vs escorts) and smaller
escort-sized armed with needle batteries and possibly operated
off-the-books by privateers under letters of marque and reprisal. Both
may, in time of war, hunt down enemy replenishment ships, and battlecruisers
may bushwhack destroyers or small cruiser forces. Speed, lightning speed, more
lightning speed are the watchwords here. Also since their opponents are not
likely to be heavily shielded (DDs and FFs), beam batteries are ideal, while
missles would be right out given their mission profiles.
Local Defense forces: I'm thinking mostly smaller ships, with low thrust (Come
on, they're defending a planet. Just where would they go?), lots of
survivability and weapons. They won't stop a battleline in any case, so focus
on smacking raiders and probing attacks.
Possibly supplement with a few high-thrust ships for patroling system
as a whole vs commerce raiders.
Local Fleets: sub-sections of the empire may maintain smaller fleets,
especially on frontiers. Few battleline ships, if any--and what they
have will likely be CVL/BB/Light BB (former BC size, since I'm using
Battlecruiser to designate a stripped and faster BB). Ideally the scarce large
capital ships will be something like the NSL
'Carriernaught' (four fighter groups and battleship beam armament)--
flexibility is watchword. Heavy emphasis on cruisers, which would be used in
small squadrons or singly in most cases. Destroyer squadrons would also be
useful, especially for hunting comerce raiders. Destroyer squadrons should be
designed as an integrated whole rather than accumulation of individuals.
Convoy Escorts: No missles, likely predominately small ships (12 frigates can
be split among 6 convoys, 1 SDN has to be in one place). Some maneuverability
is needed, say about thrust 4, but you don't
really need thrust 6--you're tied to thrust 2 freighters anyway. Beam
batteries, some torps for dealing with capital raiders. Since these
are small forces, fighters may be disproportionately effective--CVEs
built on Lt BB hulls seem to be ideal.
One thing that came up in old games of FT - when using a campaign
background, a certian phenomena began to appear in our battles. There would be
one pass at high speeds, with an exchange of fire at closest approach, and the
one who thought he came away poorly usually turned tail and ran. This was
brought up later in the Dream Pod 9 rework of The Jovian Chronicles as a
'Lightning Pass'
scenario. There it was due purely to velocity differences - they were
using rather more Newtonian motion than FT2. This led to a lot of nasty
tactics -
mines & missiles laid in wait, stringing out the fleet, etc.
BTW, if anybody hasn't seen them, check out the ships in DP9's Jovian
Chronicles Main book and Tech Manual - somebody needs to cast these, eh,
Jon & KR?
> You wrote:
> One thing that came up in old games of FT - when using a campaign
In certain games this may be enough. One of the convoy escort games I was just
playing a while ago, my brother's BB commerce raider was more or less
colocated with two freighters (had to shift ships out of
way--mini games can be nuisance sometimes), and had he been pointed up
the convoy, a single volley would have been enough to gut all four of the
light freighters (ignoring the heavy and medium freighters), thus probably
winning the game.
> It occours to me that with the changes brought about by the Fleet
[snip]
> John M. Atkinson
Play a minor power that buys its ships from the FSE....?:)
> It occours to me that with the changes brought about by the Fleet
That's a remarkably narrow-minded attitude. Why limit yourself so?
You sound like a GW fanboy. "I really like those Heartbreaker figures, but
officially I can only use genuine Space Marine figures for my Space
Wolves...." If you like the ships, use the ships. If you don't like the
French, don't call 'em French. Call 'em something else. GZG, of all companies,
will understand if you choose to disregard some segment of the "official"
background. I have a small ton of GZG stuff, and both
of my fleets (FSE and NSL, for the record) were chosen on the basis of what
looked coolest to me. I have no intention of using the GZG
background for ANY of my games--I find it too limiting. I'm going with
a far, far future sort of background, one that will let me use all of my
many figures with ease. And yes, that includes my Space Marines, my Imperial
Guard, my Tyrannids, and my Eldar. All of which I purchased, by the way,
strictly because they looked good; I would not be caught dead using GW
"rules". When you get right down to it, the majority of my figures would be
unusable with the GZG background, since too many of them are aliens of various
sizes, shapes, and colors. Anyone ever see the "Arachnids" from the
"Battlelords of the 23rd Century" line? Stupid
damn name, but wonderful figures--imagine big bugs, 25mm high at the
shoulder, wearing powered armor with an integral missile pack, and carrying a
really nasty looking rifle.... Where do they fit into the GZG background? Now
the rules, on the other hand....that's another story. They let me use whatever
I like, and that's why I like them.
Sorry for the rant, but I have to deal with GW fanboys on an almost
daily basis, and it gets to me after a while. They won't look at anything that
is not an official GW product, no matter how good it is, and it is next to
impossible to convince them otherwise. Ah well...I'll
stop now.
> Sorry for the rant, but I have to deal with GW fanboys on an
The one bit of GW fandom that really has been a success are the unofficial
Net-Epic rules. Basically its the rules for Space marine/Epic adjusted
and adapted, and most shocking of all for GW fans its free! Thats probably
some sort of heresy within GW circles.
As to the ships I ran a FT-B5 game at Gaelcon about 3 years ago and had
my NSL's as Earthforce Destroyers and similar. Luckily I had a few Minbari
Micromachines as well to match them. Micromachine Vorlons are quite handy as
Sa'Vasku ships too. Until the official "Shadowy" Sa'vasku appeared. Not that I
let that stop me using them.
> You wrote:
> Wolves...." If you like the ships, use the ships. If you don't like
I do. I very much do.
You may have heard of my Nea Rhomaioi?
> You wrote:
Yes, I have. Sorry. It was just that hearing you say "I like these ships, but
they're FRENCH ships, and I don't like the French, so I
can't use them" seemed a bit...silly to me. Like I said, I hear variations on
that sentence far too often for my tastes. People on this
list, by their very nature, are simply not going to be as narrow-minded
as the average GW fanboy, as I well know. I just need to switch to Decaf.
> You wrote:
> Yes, I have. Sorry. It was just that hearing you say "I like
You misspelled "So I have to play with the background to get away with using
them.":)
> "What color is a chameleon on a mirror?"
Confused? Octarine? (Place that one! Probably too easy...)
> "What color is a chameleon on a mirror?"
Oddly enough, I painted my Sa'Vasku ships Octarine. They seem to have
developed this unfortunate tendancy to fall through the table and chase the
cat around the room, though.
> You wrote:
> Oddly enough, I painted my Sa'Vasku ships Octarine. They seem to have
ROFL! Who's putting out Octarine paint? And how do they keep it in the jar?
> no speed, or the FSE which is dead opposite (BTW, Why, oh why did GZG
I've always liked the ships, and have had a fleet painted for a while. Now I
have all sorts of new tactics to ponder.
...and counter tactics, as I like the NSL stuff too.
> It occours to me that with the changes brought about by the Fleet
I love different designs from the different fleets. My favorite miniature is
the minnow shaped ESU Nanuchka class Corvette
(http://www.geohex.com/vift203.htm). I love this design and wish that I
had this hull in a varity of sizes to make a whole fleet.
This is he Cygnus Eclipsers. CE is both a weapons manufacturer and a mercenary
unit. This way I can field any miniature and any design I desire. CE gained a
solar system early in space exploration and was able to defeat any "friendly
takover" or "protectorate assistance" from the major governments.
I've been playing around with the FB design rules quite a bit lately (I trying
not to think about essays and thesis') and I been thinking about the designs
I've come with. Firstly someone was talking about fire arcs in one post. IMHO
always upgrade the class 2 to 360 degree firearcs saves worrying about your
rear all the time. Always give class 3's 180 degree arcs. If you have 3 or
more class 3 batterys first one fires in the front 180 degrees, one 60 deg
further to port, the other 60 deg to starboard (I think you can see where this
is going). Fit class 4's in pairs each with 2 fire arcs. Extra arcs go one to
port and one to starboard. Finally, useless a very specialised design always
mount at least 2 class 1's. They are just too useful for shooting fighter and
missiles. Pulse torps are much better now that they can have 180 deg arcs.
Take the extra arcs. Only use the front 180 unless on a big ship of thrust 2
in which case stagger the arcs to port and starboard. That way if it comes
down to a circling battle between two heavies (and IME it nearly always does)
you can keep throwing at least one torp at him. SML's. I must admit that I'm
yet to see them in a game but I believe that for best results you'll need 2
salvos on target. If mounted on a small ship use 1 launcher, if on a big ship
use 2 launchers from the same mag (and make it a big one). Not used much. With
my own designs I've found that my big ships (over Mass 150) all mount 2
screens and at least 8 points of armour and are virtually all thrust 2 on
average hulls. Mass 150 to 50 and they all have 1 screen and 5 points of
armour, usually thrust 4 or better, average but a couple of weak hulls. The
only difference between the small crusiers and the large destroyers is that
the destroyers dont have screens. My designs are 50/50 average and weak
hulls all thrust 6, most have no armour but some get 2 or 3 points worth. A
couple of my designs mount nothing but a pair of pulse torps or an SML with 4
shot mag. How would this work as a fleet? The destroyers are fairly light but
pack a fair punch, the idea being I don't have to survive your fire if I can
kill you first. Crusiers tend to be more general prupose except for the escort
type (2 ADS, 8 PDS, 2 class 1's) with the faster types more suited to heavy
antiship work (beams plus 1 or 2 pulse torps). Ships of the Line (apart from
carriers) emphasize survivability (hey if the OU every buys things this big
they'll want their moneys worth) but pack a punch at the cost of speed. Some
of the line are sluggers (one design which I really like had 7 class 3, 2
class 2 and 2 class 1's) or snipers (mouting class 4's instead of 3's) which
support the main line by being a second line or follow up wave. Carriers are
far more fragile (weak hulls, 6 points armour) but are
heavily geared for fighter ops (CVL - 5 groups, CV - 8 groups. I want
lanuch control rules in FT3). I am toying with the idea of having my carriers
mount class 4 beams and form a second line to the
Ships-of-the-line.
I think the new design rules are great and we will see a lot more variations
in ship and fleet designs reflecting the preferences of the players more or
how much they just want to win:).
> At 01:21 AM 6/25/98 EDT, Noah V. Doyle wrote:
> BTW, if anybody hasn't seen them, check out the ships in DP9's Jovian
Are you volunteering to write up starship designs for these?:)
> trapper wrote:
Hmmm... Particle beams, KK cannons, and missiles would be easy to duplicate
using the current FB rules. However the heavy laser cannon on the Valient
Class CV might take the HBW from the EFSB. Hopefully we'll get the HBW sorted
out for FTIII
> It occours to me that with the changes brought about by the Fleet
I'd like to see some task specific fleets posted, For example:
Commerce Raider force:
10-20 Scoutships spread in a web to find enemy shipping
Scoutship (SML bait) Mass 5, Thrust 8, FTL, Level-1 Electronics
(I thought I read that level-1 only uses 1 Mass)
By using the electronics to alter size they can appear to
be 17-64 Mass combatants.
plus:
1 Heavy Raider, Thrust 6+, high electronics for stealth, <20%
between Armor and Structure. It needs an extremely advantageous range band to
make up for the expense of its huge engines and stealth systems. Armament mix
strategies: Parthian: Bat 4's mounted exclusively on one side. Designed to
maintain range against an enemy convoy without giving up firing opportunities.
Works especially well if you can cripple their drives first. Fast Carrier:
Scouts find enemy shipping, then the fighter groups hit it while the Carrier
stay well out of range. Pocket Battleship: Instead of trying to stay out of
range of the enemy escorts the pocket battleship just closes and blows the
hell out of them. Good scouting is essential to prevent the battleship from
getting damaged far from home. A significant portion of its defenses will be
armor in order to delay a threshold check that could strand it.
Another specialized ship, for those familiar with David Weber's Honor
Harrington series: Tepes Class State Security Battlecruisers.
These are multirole ships decidedly _not_ optimized for fleet to
fleet combat. The Peeps used them as weapons of terror to keep both their
populace and navy personnel in line. In a sense they are really just glorified
troop transports, but as the favorite tool of an intelligence service they
probably have a few neat
knick-knacks aboard.
In addition to interface craft for landing troops, a fighter bay for covert
ground attacks would be a good asset. Or even specialized fighter groups that
carry troops for boarding.
They carry huge electronics suites for eavesdropping, especially against their
own ships. They should have a much higher effective electronics ratings
against their own nation's naval forces.
Multirole ships might make good exploration vessels. Imagine a series of naval
simulations designed to build a multirole craft, they want a ship or squadron
that can handle any problem (that does not actually involve going to war with
a major power) on their own:
1) Stopping smugglers 2) Monitoring the planet surface 3) Monitoring local
space 4) Stopping insurrections 5) Transporting emergency supplies, or
extremely valuable cargo securely 6) Authorized for First Contact protocols
7) Maintaining quarantine and/or customs
8) Stepping in on the squabbles of local corporate space fleets ie, prevent
corporations from dropping rocks on their rival's space ports 9) Chasing enemy
intelligence scouts out of the system
10) Not getting destroyed or captured by enemy Q-ship tactics
11) Rescuing damaged ships in system, or at least their crews
12) Long duration, multi-encounter patrols
Because a significant amount of mass and points are going to be committed to
troops, cargo area and specialized systems they are not going to be as combat
effective as a ship designed on equal points for the express purpose of
beating equal sized enemy ships.
Lets see: 100 Mass Ship, 40 Mass Engine, 10 Mass Structure, 10 mass Armor, 9
Mass Fighter Bay, 9 Mass Interface bay, 4 Mass Electronics,
1 Launch Control, 10 Mass Cargo and Troops, 6 Bat-1, 1 Fire Con
A brief note on firing arcs for fleet designers: A lot depends on who is going
to be determining the engagement angle. Convoy escorts are going to travelling
from A to B and especially for the first hit are going to be hit at an
inconvenient angle. For these ships it really pays to have 180 or 360 arc
weapons. They may forgo the longer ranged narrower arc weapons on the theory
that a force big enough to do crippling damage at long range is going to wipe
them out anyway.
For ships which are designed to meet an enemy fleet a lot depends on the
average closing speed whether reducing one's firepower in exchange for better
arcs is worthwhile. Is it worth a 33% percent loss of firepower to go from 180
Bat2 to 360 Bat2s?