http://home.quixnet.net/~deboe/nre/
is the new home of the Full Metal Armenians, the
Byzantines in Spaa-aace (complete with Devious
Byzantine Treachery[tm]) or merely New Rome.
I came to the conclusion that my website really sucked ass. I mean really. So
I'm in the process of
revising it and transferring it over to the (ad-less)
quixnet server under Chris's account.
The Naval part is (I think) done. I renamed most of
the ship classes, narrowed the arcs on some 3-beams,
not much else changed. OO, I would like you to vet
them for point costs. I'm not using any beta-test
stuff unless and until it actually comes out in print.
Would also like people to check on my external links. All of them should be
valid.
The DSII stuff is still under construction. Not much is there at all. Except
the House Rules page. Also have the Themes page up. Am slowly working on the
Tagmata pages, they will be the next group up.
In a future page will discuss Roman flags, but for now, the one in the corner
is Imperial flag.
> http://home.quixnet.net/~deboe/nre/
or perhaps Anatolians?
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
We're all mixed-breeds around here.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:35:08 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Roger that.
> __________________________________
> John Atkinson wrote:
> The Naval part is (I think) done. I renamed most of
Sure. Here goes:
> More adjustments will necessary once the New and Improved points
Note that the *procurement* costs in Noumisma don't need to change just
because the *point values* changes. The procurement cost is the amount of
money the NRE navy had to pay for the ship; the points value indicates how
much the ship is worth in combat... and while those two values might coincide,
they are not the same thing. (Indeed, the very fact that they usually *don't*
coincide is by far the biggest reason why weapons have developed from sticks
and rocks up to what we have available today and
beyond :-/ )
Reliable class Mail Courier: OK. Strictly speaking the hull is Weak (over
15% of the TMF) rather than Fragile, but that's pretty irrelevant :-/
Valiant class Scout (AS), Chios class Reconnaissance Corvette (FFS): both OK
> Night-blooming Cerebus class System Defense Boat
I assume that you mean "400 tonnes modules" rather than "4 ton modules"?
Otherwise you're either saying that 100 tonnes = 1 ton (which sounds a bit
strange), or that your weapon modules are about 0.02 MASS each (which is
flatly contradicted by the three weapon module descriptions) :-/
If my above assumption is correct (and the modules described indicate that I
am), the NPV is 49 rather than 48:
Item: Mass Cost
Basic hull 14 - 14
Hull Integrity 4 4 8 1xClass 1 Battery 1 3 "4 tons module space" 4 12 1xFire
Control 1 4 Main Drive rating 6 4 8
---------------------------------------------------
Total 14 49
Kalithea class Corvette (FFL), Belisarius class Frigate (FF), Maniakes class
Heavy Frigate (FFH), Cimbalongus class Destroyer (DD, DDG; DDE), Kallisto
class Stealth Destroyer (DDS), Krystallidis System Defense Destroyer, Milvian
Bridge class Destroyer Leader (DDL), Georgis Averof class Light Carrier (CVL),
Hydra class Commerce Raider (CR), Aspis class
Minehunter (MH): all OK
Keravnos class Electronic Warfare Destroyer (DEW): ILLEGAL - uses 1 MASS
too many (looks like a PDS or the B1-6):
Item: Mass Cost
TMF 44 - 44
Hull Integrity 13 13 26
2xB2-3 (LS/RS) 4 12
1xClass 1 Battery 1 3 Superior sensors 2 30 1xFire Control 1 4 1xArea Jammer 3
30 2xPDS 2 6 Armor rating 2 2 4 Main Drive rating 6 13 26 FTL Drive 4 8
-----------------------------------------------------
Total 45 193
> Thessalonika class Light Cruiser (CL)
[...]
> Procurement cost: 1770 Million Noumisma
As currently written, it is a bit unclear which Procurement Cost refers to
what version; I suggest moving the "Procurement Cost: 1830 Million Noumisma"
to immediately below the "Light Missile Cruiser" line, since that's the
version it refers to. (The CL is OK at NPV 177, the CLG is OK at NPV 183.)
Panther class Escort Cruiser (CE): OK
> Miaoulis class Heavy Cruiser (CA)
[...]
> Armament: 3xClass 2 Battery (LS/RS/FH), 1xClass 3 battery, (FA),
Undefined fire arc "FA". It seems to mean either "F" (60-degree forward
arc) or "FH" (FP/F/FS, ie. 180-degree forward arc), and you're not using
it consistently to mean one of these meanings but instead alternate between
them. (When you refer to single fire arcs it would IMO be considerably easier
if you deigned to use the arc designations provided in FB1 instead of
inventing your own; and if you absolutely have to invent your own arc
designations for single arcs then at least PLEASE use them consistently...!)
In this case the CA is OK if "FA" means "F"; but if OTOH "FA" means "FH" it
uses 2 MASS too many (82 instead of 80). The CAG uses 2 MASS too many (82
instead of 80) either way.
> Athens class System Defense Cruiser
Undefined fire arc "FA". The only interpretation which makes this design
legal is if "FA" means "FH" for the Class-2 battery but "F" for the
Class-3; it can't mean "F" for the Class-2 (since Class-2s have a
minimum
of 3 arcs), and if it means "FH" for the Class-3 the ship uses 2 MASS
too many (82 instead of 80).
> Tombazis class Protected Cruiser (CB)
[...]
> Armament: 1xClass 1 Battery, 2xClass 2 Battery (FH), 3xClass 3
Undefined fire arc "FA". If "FA" means "F" the design is OK; if it is a typo
for "FH" it uses 6 MASS too many (112 instead of 106).
> Basileos Justinian class Battleship (BB)
[...]
> Armament: 2xClass 2 Battery (FA), 4xClass 3 batteries, (FA), 2xPulse
Undefined fire arc "FA". Class-2 batteries cannot be 1-arc so for them
"FA"
must be a typo for "FH"; however, if the 4xClass-3 batts are FH rather
than F the ship uses 8 MASS too many (128 instead of 120).
> de la Valette class Battlecruiser (BC)
[...]
> Armament: 3xClass 2 Battery (LS/RS/FH), 4xClass 3 batteries, (FA),
Undefined fire arc "FA". If "FA" means "F" the design is OK; if it is a typo
for "FH" it uses 8 MASS too many (128 instead of 120).
> Basileos Megas Konstandinos class Dreadnought (DN)
[...]
> Armament: 4xClass 2 Battery (LS/RS/2xFH), 4xClass 3 batteries, (FA),
Undefined fire arc "FA". If "FA" means "F" the design is OK; if it is a typo
for "FH" it uses 8 MASS too many (168 instead of 160).
> Nafkratousa class Hunter-Killer Dreadnought (DNK)
[...]
> Armament: 1xClass 2 Battery (FH), 3xClass 3 batteries, (FA), 8xPTorp
Undefined fire arc "FA". If "FA" means "F" the design is OK; if it is a typo
for "FH" it uses 6 MASS too many (166 instead of 160).
> Kilkis class Heavy Dreadnought (DNL)
[...]
> Armament: 3xClass 2 Battery (LS/RS/FA), 4xClass 3 batteries, (FA),
Undefined fire arc "FA". Class-2 batteries cannot be 1-arc so for them
"FA"
must be a typo for "FH"; however, if the 4xClass-3 batts are FH rather
than F the ship uses 8 MASS too many (258 instead of 250).
> Lemnos class Hunter-Killer Heavy Dreadnought (DNLK)
[...]
> Armament: 3xClass 2 Battery (LS/RS/FA), 4xClass 3 batteries, (FA),
Undefined fire arc "FA". Class-2 batteries cannot be 1-arc so for them
"FA"
must be a typo for "FH"; however, if the 4xClass-3 batts are FH rather
than F the ship uses 8 MASS too many (258 instead of 250).
Basilissa Irene class System Defense Monitor: ILLEGAL - uses 1 MASS too
many (251 instead of 250, and the NPV seems to be way too low too:
> Displacement: 25000 tonnes (Mass factor 250)
[...]
> Procurement cost: 8210 Million Noumisma, plus fighters
Item Mass Cost
Mass factor 250 - 250
Hull Integrity 75 75 150 2xClass 2 Battery 4 12
4xB3-3 24 72
2xClass 1 Battery 2 6 2 Pulse Torpedo Tubes 8 24 5xFire Control 5 20 6xPDS 6
18 Armor rating 34 34 68 Level 2 Shields 25 75 Main Drive rating 4 50 100
Hanger Bays: 2 18 54 Total 251 (849)
Antioch class Escort Carrier, Niki class Strike Carrier: both OK
> Helle class Fleet Carrier
Armament seems to be wrong - judging from the TMF and NPV given it
should
be "2xClass 2 Batteries (LS/RS), 1xClass 1 Battery".
> Note on Firing Arcs:
Why do you "define the forward arc as number 1" instead of simply using the
arc designations in FB1 (p.4, diagram 3)? Ie., define your 3-arc groups
as
"FH = FP/F/FS, LS = AP/FP/F, RS = F/FS/AS"...
> I'm not using any beta-test stuff unless and until it actually comes
<chuckle> So you're going to dump the Night-blooming Cerebus class the
instant modular armaments become an official "beta-test rule"? ;-)
Regards,
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I really like what you have here, but I have one problem and one question:
"New Armenia: Settled by ESU, population included a number of 'tame'
Armenians. Transferred to Islamic Federation without consultation of local
authorities. When the Roman forces moved in, clever use of bribes for the
local leadership prevented much effective military response. Islamic
Federation counterattacks took back approx 20% of land area, making this a
divided planet."
I think any attempt at control of an Armenian population by muslims, and
particularly fundamentalists like Wahhabis, would result in instant
insurrection.
and Q: Would the NRE have gathered up refugee Christians other than Copts;
such as Chaldeans, Melkites, Meronites, Syriac, etc.? How about Byzantine
Catholics, who follow Byzantine rights rather than Latin but are Catholic?
J
> --- Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think any attempt at control of an Armenian
Which did, was handled brutally, and that's why the locals are largely loyal
Romans now.
> and
OK, the Syriac churches are included in the compromise worked out with the
Monophysites. I hadn't thought
about the Nestorians--with them it will be far more
difficult to reach any agreement.
> Byzantine Catholics, who follow Byzantine rights
Uniates... well, we would have pulled them out of the IFed, but they would
have either moved on to the FSE or returned to Orthodoxy. I don't see having a
pro-Papal minority being encouraged to settle on our
planets. Ever.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
OK, I think I fixed everything on the fleet page.
Maybe I should do up a little graphic as the "OO Seal of Approval", the next
best thing to an official endorsement, and add it to the page.:)
Also added the Tagmatic elements of the Army. The rest is coming slowly. Once
I get the
meat-and-potatos of the game stats edited and
transferred to the new format along with rewritten fluff text, then I start
writing the new background material.
Would there be any interest in a doctrine page? More
for DSII&SGII than Full Thrust--I don't pretend to any
special competence in Full Thrust (as is likely for RL space combat, it is
best left to computers and people who think like computers). It would include
links to "In Character" writeups I've done on various Stargrunt organizations
floating around the web. It will be a good bit of work and I don't want to
mess with it if there ain't no demand.
I would be very interested in doctrine pages for your DSII forces. Likely,
after you finish them, I'll work some up for some of the stuff I'm working on.
:)
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Subject: Re: New and Improved Website
I'm interested!