MEKO Ships, OUDF and all that

> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
Hull,
> MD & FTL are all integral to the structure of the ship. Everything

Agreed. The tonnage devoted to Thrust, Hull, FTL and Armour remained constant,
if you looked closely.... only the name of the hull strength changed, from
"Strong (50%) 16 mass" to "Average (40%) 16 mass". But 16 mass it remained.

32 Mass only requires 3.2 ie 3 for FTL, and it had 4. This was justified using
the finest quality PSB in the original, but basically it was because the Mass
32 Patrol Vessel is a Mass 40 Destroyer, with bits not fitted, and like you I
figured the FTL would not be amenable to modularisation (modularity?
Whatever). In any event, it had 4 for the FTL.

32 mass with 8 tonnes (25%) devoted to Thrust gives a Thrust of 5. But 40 mass
with 8 tonnes (20%) devoted to Thrust gives a Thrust of 4. Again, the engines
don't change, they're just pushing around a heavier weight.

> These modules fit the cargo splits (2/2/2/2);

SMR - good idea, but I think an ER rack would be tactically more useful.
I also wanted the OUDF ships to be slightly different from anyone
else's, even the FSEs. Trademarks are/COULD be : SMR(ER) rather than
Magazined MRs, no pulse torps, Fwd-arc only Type 3s, lots of Hull,
Shields, Armour.

AEGIS - I didn't want to add any armour as I figured it wouldn;'t be
modular-capable, so ADFC + 4 PDS + Type 2 (or 2 type 1s?) was my
solution.

Patrol Variant - Very nice, balanced armament. Would make this one of
THE most effective ships in the game. Which I didn't particularly want... and
conflicted with the "no pulse torps" signature given above. I'm very impressed
with this design though, congrats.

Carrier - I thought about this. 8 mass can't give you the full 6
fighters though, and having a carrier of less than heavy cruiser size would
set a bad precedent. Effective though.

OUDF tactic No 1: