Big mean and nasty. From a background perspective, what is the
reasoning for the 5-arc Beam-3s and Beam-4s?
Smaller arcs (max 3-arc) and more weapon mounts give greater "bang" for
the same mass. Personally it isn't dangerous enough in close to discourage
swarm ships or close maneouvring to get in its blind spot.
Also, I think the 3-row hull is overkill on a ship this large (although
does fit the fluff you wrote) and the cost increase is quite significant for
an NSL ship.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
> -----Original Message-----
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
I have to agree with Brendan. I would reduce the beam 4s and 3s to 3
arc, and put more on. Each "side" can do the F, F[S/P], and R[S/P]
side. It'll have good broadsides and will horrific to the front.:)
J
> Big mean and nasty. From a background perspective, what is the
2.
> This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
4.
> Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOne of the reasons
I gave the beams so many arcs is due to the fact that the ship is not very
manueverable, and will potentially be fighting highly manueverable opponents
(i.e.e Kra'Vak). At 12", it can put out 29 beam dice in any arc except for
directly aft. I've also thought about dropping the
fighters for more beams and possibly an AFDC- I can see NSL fleets
having a nasty "network" of PDS fire among ships of cruiser size and larger,
with their escorts destroying enemy "swarm" units at range.
I personally find beam weapons larger than class 4's to be examples of the law
of diminishing returns (Grasers have the same problem, IMHO). A
class-5
beam that fires through two arcs is 20 mass- you could get two two-arc
class 4's for the same mass and have almost twice the firepower (albeit not
out to 60"). I see the Neu Swabians as being just as efficient as modern day
Germans and Austrians, they'd have figured this out too.
So there you have it, my rationale for building the ship the way I did. Also
keep in mind that a Kra'Vak superdreadnought could conceivably destroy this
ship in two salvos if it lucks out and does max damage with it's K6's twice in
a row (Not hard to do when they only do 6 damage on a 6). I've never fought a
Yu'Kas, but that seems a bit excessive to me.
> On 3/15/07, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
It'll
> have good broadsides and will horrific to the front. :)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 3/15/07, James
> Moore <jmooreou@gmail.com> wrote:
I've
> never fought a Yu'Kas, but that seems a bit excessive to me.
One of the things that bothered me about the ships in FB1is that they make
much more sense in vector than they do in cinematic. Long range weapons in
a single arc, forward, force the vessel to close with the enemy--
significantly reducing the value of the extra range. Given that a three arc
beam-3 is only better than three three arc beam-2's at more than 24mu,
you need some way to keep the range open. As cinematic requires you to move in
the direction that you are pointing, a centerline arc is truly aweful for
keeping the enemy at arms length.
The aspect of the Kra'Vak that bothers me is that the k-5 and k-6 are
overkill. They are only useful as elephant guns (hunting phalon
pachyderms). Against human ships and Sa'Vasku constructs, the k-3 has
the
best bang for the mass point and the k-4 will poke holes clear through
to the innards of all but the largest phalon warships. What really limits the
desireability of k-5's and k-6's is that they have exactly the same
range as
a k-1 (not that 30mu is anything to sneer at). If you thought the stock
Yu'Kas was a fright, try fighting it with a non-phalon after the four
k-6's
> Richard Bell wrote:
> One of the things that bothered me about the ships in FB1is that they
Um... Richard? Exactly which FB1 ships are you talking about here?
The only FB*1* ships that even vaguely resemble your "long range weapons in a
single arc, forward" description are some of the NAC ships, and with one
single exception even they also have a bunch of 3- and 6-arc weapons
making
them quite capable of projecting firepower into their non-(F) arcs
during
the "dog-fight" part of a Cinematic battle that typically ensues after
the
initial more-or-less-head-on flyby.
The one exception to this, ie. the only FB1 ship which "makes more sense in
vector than in cinematic", is the NAC Furious-class CE. That one is a
very poor Cinematic design, but fairly good in Vector.
The FB*2* Kra'Vak ships are very much Cinematic designs, combining
(F)-arc-only weapons with the high manoeuvrability ratings required to
use such weapons effectively against enemies with thrust ratings higher than
2.
They don't make much sense in Vector however, since they don't get much return
for the high price they pay for their Advanced engines (in FB Vector, the
difference between Standard and Advanced engines is effectively that the
Advanced drives get 1 "free" thrust point that can only be used
for a rotation).
> The aspect of the Kra'Vak that bothers me is that the k-5 and k-6 are
And which species did the Kra'Vak fight (for quite a long time, judging from
the FB2 background texts) before they ran into humanity? (Hint: the
name starts with a "P" :-/)
Regards,