KV design Summary (utilising the KISS principle)
*****
Hull: as normal Armour: as screen, but costs: mass x 5 Drives: cost: mass x 3
(extra maneuverability) Weapons:
Railguns: equivalent beam mass + 1/2 RG class (round up). Cost: mass x
3.
Scatterguns: mass: 1, cost: 10, 6" antiship/ADFC-PDS range. Separate
firecon for antiship fire. Fighters: as normal
*****
Examples: Conversion requires KV drive levels reduced slightly on some ships &
half the weapons downgraded to the next smaller RG class.
Da'Kak class Frigate (145 pts) Mass: 36 Hull: Ave FTL: Std Main Drive: 6
Damage Track: 11
[ooo/oo*/ooo/o*]
Firecontrols: 2 Scatterguns: 2
2 x RG-2 (F)
Di'Tok class Destroyer (190 pts) Mass: 48 Hull: Ave FTL: Std Main Drive: 6
Damage Track: 14
[oooo/*ooo/o*o/oo*]
Firecontrols: 3 Scatterguns: 2
2 x RG-2 (F)
2 x RG-1 (AP/FP; FS/AS)
Vo'Bok class hunter (260 pts) Mass: 60 Hull: Ave FTL: Std Main Drive: 6
KV Armour-1
Damage Track: 18
[ooooo/*oooo/o*oo/ooo*]
Firecontrols: 2 Scatterguns: 4
2 x RG-2 (F)
2 x RG-1 (FP/F; F/FS)
Si'Tek class Patrol Cruiser (281 pts) Mass: 68 Hull: Ave FTL: Std Main Drive:
6
KV Armour-1
Damage Track: 20
[ooooo/ooooo/ooooo/oooo*]
Firecontrols: 2 Scatterguns: 4
2 x RG-2 (F)
2 x RG-2 (FP; FS)
Va'Dok class Heavy Cruiser (356 pts) Mass: 88 Hull: Ave FTL: Std Main Drive: 6
KV Armour-1
Damage Track: 26
[ooooo*o/oooo*oo/ooo*oo/ooo*o*]
Firecontrols: 3 Scatterguns: 4
4 x RG-2 (F)
2 x RG-1 (AP/FP; FS/AS)
Ti'Dak Class Battlecruiser (512 pts) Mass: 108 Hull: Ave FTL: Std Main Drive:
4
KV Armour-2
Damage Track: 32
[ooooo*oo] - 6
[ooo*oooo] - 5
[o*ooooo*] - 4
[ooooo*o*]
Firecontrols: 4 Scatterguns: 6
2 x RG-3 (F)
2 x RG-2 (F)
2 x RG-1 (FP/F; F/FS)
Ko'Vol class Battleship (620 pts) Mass: 140 Hull: Ave FTL: Std Main Drive: 4
KV Armour-2
Damage Track: 42
[ooooo*oo] - 6
[ooo*oooo] - 5
[o*ooooo*] - 4
[ooooo*o*]
Firecontrols: 4 Scatterguns: 6
2 x RG-3 (F)
4 x RG-2 (F)
2 x RG-1 (FP/F; F/FS)
2 x RG-1 (AP/FP; FS/AS)
Yu'Kas class Superdreadnought (981 pts) Mass: 230 Hull: Ave FTL: Std Main
Drive: 4
KV Armour-2
Damage Track: 69
[ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
[ooooo*ooooo*ooooo]
[*ooooo*ooooo*oooo]
[o*ooooo*ooooo*oo*]
Firecontrols: 3 Scatterguns: 8
4 x RG-3 (F)
2 x RG-2 (F)
2 x RG-2 (FP; FS)
2 x RG-1 (AP/FP; FS/AS)
2 x Fighter Bays (Heavy fighters)
*****
I'm quite happy with the way it works out, & the masses fit into the standard
FTFB class designations.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
- Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".
> KV design Summary (utilising the KISS principle)
Always a good idea :-)
> Hull: as normal
This needs to differentiate between FTL and Main drives. the efficiency is NOT
the same.
I costed the FTL the same as normal, just forgot to specify it.
FTL drives = as normal Maneuver Drives: cost = mass x 3 (extra
maneuverability)
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
- Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".
> -----Original Message-----
> I costed the FTL the same as normal, just forgot to specify it.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
You're using standard hull integrity costs? I thought we'd propose to change
them. Maybe standard works better now?
Thrust downgrades are they in keeping with the KV concept. Its probably an
acceptable downgrade otherwise you get anomalies as you step from 8 to 6.
RG mass formula is intriguing? seems to work.
5x mass for Iarmor seems about right.
Otherwise the mass and points look OK.
> RG mass formula is intriguing? seems to work.
Just a thought though this is balances for the bRG system not sRG?
We need to decide on some more common ground.
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> KV design Summary (utilising the KISS principle)
Brendan,
Way too heavy, and not enought fire-power.. We should not have the
lightest ship mounting class3 Railguns a BattleCruiser.. That should be a
light Cruiser, which should mount 2 of them, with a Battlecruiser mounting 4
class3.. looking at MT, the target mass for FTFB should be as follows:
Scout - 8 mass
Corvette - 16 mass
Frigate - 24 mass
Destroyer - 32 mass
Lt Cruiser - 48 mass
Patrol Cruiser - 56 mass
Hvy Cruiser - 72 mass
battleCruiser - 88 mass
Battleship - 112 mass
BattleDreadnought - 128 mass
SuperDreadnought - 184 mass
Strike Carrier - 192 mass
Points must be at least 1.5 times the FTFB standard for the same class.
SA
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> KV design Summary (utilising the KISS principle)
Brendan,
Way too heavy, and not enought fire-power.. We should not have the
lightest ship mounting class3 Railguns a BattleCruiser.. That should be a
light Cruiser, which should mount 2 of them, with a Battlecruiser mounting 4
class3.. looking at MT, the target mass for FTFB should be as follows:
Scout - 8 mass
Corvette - 16 mass
Frigate - 24 mass
Destroyer - 32 mass
Lt Cruiser - 48 mass
Patrol Cruiser - 56 mass
Hvy Cruiser - 72 mass
battleCruiser - 88 mass
Battleship - 112 mass
BattleDreadnought - 128 mass
SuperDreadnought - 184 mass
Strike Carrier - 192 mass
Points must be at least 1.5 times the FTFB standard for the same class.
SA
> 5x mass for Iarmor seems about right.
I've found that this works as well.
OK, using masses of 1/2/4/8 or 2/3/6/10, you try & fit the MT weapons
loadout into these masses. The ships I did are still within FTFB parameters
for each of these classes & will still wipe out any human vessel with 6" in
front of it. The "old" weapons simply cannot fit into at FTFB hull using FTFB
mass progressions.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
- Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".
[quoted original message omitted]
Brendan,
This is why we having been looking at the whole Kra'Vak ship, and trying to
balance out each core component, So we can safely bring the Kra'Vak upto Fleet
book status. You are Correct in your statment any Kra'Vak ship
should be able to destroy its Human counterpart - This is unchanged from
FTMT. If we incress the mass of railguns and scatterguns, then we must lower
some other mass. The list has pretty much chosen lowering hull mass, to cover
this incress.
Steven
> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> OK, using masses of 1/2/4/8 or 2/3/6/10, you try & fit the MT weapons
Brendan,
This is why we having been looking at the whole Kra'Vak ship, and trying to
balance out each core component, So we can safely bring the Kra'Vak upto Fleet
book status. You are Correct in your statment any Kra'Vak ship
should be able to destroy its Human counterpart - This is unchanged from
FTMT. If we incress the mass of railguns and scatterguns, then we must lower
some other mass. The list has pretty much chosen lowering hull mass, to cover
this incress.
Steven
> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> OK, using masses of 1/2/4/8 or 2/3/6/10, you try & fit the MT weapons