New NAC ship and a cheese question

Hi, What does the list think about having ships designed to carry an MT
missile and ram into the target (thrust 8, weak hull, mass 5, 1 MT missile)?
Bellepherion class missile carrier: Designed to anser real world questions
about using large number of SMLs on a ship. Ark Royal hull, remove 2 grades of
armour, add 6 SMLs and 18 reloads.
-Stephen

> At 11:29 PM 1/30/00 EST, you wrote:

Why would your pilot agree to command such a ship? Unless you have a really
good "background fluff" reason, I can see no justification for "ram ships".

You would need a crew of fanatics to even think about it, as most captains
would get lynched by their own crew without a very good reason (that 1 in 6
chance could happen though...)
That's if your opponent didn't lynch you first of course ;-)

With regards to the Bellepherion, what a waste against those frigate swarms...

Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander

> -----Original Message-----

Well, Might try a modified version of the idea Drac,something I am toying
with,
I am designing the Nagara-class Fast Attack Destroyer for my Imperial
Japanese Space Navy. Think a mix of Salvo Missle racks, Submunition racks,
Pulse Torps,high thrust and a weak hull (aka: Eggshells with Sledgehammers),
you might try a simillar concept, but maybe make the Hull a bit stronger?

  Jason
> > -----Original Message-----

In a message dated 1/30/2000 8:38:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> mshurtleff1@uswest.net writes:

> Why would your pilot agree to command such a ship? Unless you have a

Robotic ships, maybe I would need to allow space on the carring ship to
control it? 1 mass per ship controled?
-Stephen

In a message dated 1/30/2000 9:14:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au writes:

> With regards to the Bellepherion, what a waste against those frigate

I looked at that part after I saw that with average rolls and all of the

salvo missiles are on target you'd make a world of hurt for any ship
(73.5
damage points) and that would blow the do-do out of any frigate several
times over. So you spread the missiles over a wide range to make shure that
they will all hit something and if you're lucky you'll have a six ships almost
dead in the water.
-Stephen

> Robertson, Brendan wrote:

An abomination.

The rules I like for ramming are:

***
An abomination.

The rules I like for ramming are:
Roll D6. On a 1 the crew mutinies and the ship strikes. 2-5 the crew
eject, but the autopilot isn't set exactly right. On a 6, the crew eject, and
the autopilot is set correctly, so follow the normal ramming rules.
***

To which I'd add a roll for the detonation of the MT missle; largely a
jury-rig, I'd figure good chances for the safeties to keep it from
exploding before the crew has a chance to eject and reach a safe distance
might fail to disengage.

The exact number on the roll should be able to bring this monster into
proper play balance; I'm just bad on this kind of number-crunching.

However, for a one-off scenerio where such a ship is escourted to try
and crack a particular facility wouldn't be outrageous. Am I thinking of St.
Nazarre(sp?)? I recall Brit use of a converted US destroyer; such actions
occurred during both WWI and WWII. Arguably much further if you count
Neapoleonic fire ships and the like.

The_Beast

> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Robotic ships, maybe I would need to allow space on the carring ship

I would suggest a dedicated FCS to control a specified number of
ram ships (try 4).   This is much closer to the MT missile concept than
the additional mass option.

Bye for now,

In a message dated 1/31/2000 9:57:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> john_t_leary@pronetusa.net writes:

> I would suggest a dedicated FCS to control a specified number of

Okay, that seems reasonable.
-Stephen

In a message dated 1/31/2000 8:15:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> devans@uneb.edu writes:

> ***
such
> actions occurred during both WWI and WWII. Arguably much further if

The idea behind the ram ship was more of a protective launcher to get the
missile closer to the target and give it increased range. Think of it like a
two stage missile, except that the first stage fallows it in.
-Stephen

In a message dated 1/31/2000 7:58:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> atlas7d@earthlink.net writes:

> Well,

I wasn't intending this to be a piloted ship, just a ROV with a warhead on it.
-Stephen

> DracSpy wrote:

> Hi,

As long as you use the standard FT ramming rules (first roll a "6" on a
D6 in the order phase - AFTER you've written the orders! - to be
allowed to make the attempt, then maneuver to get within 2mu of the
target, and finally win an opposed die roll - both sides roll 1D6 +
thrust rating - to actually hit), I don't have a problem with this.

The crews probably have a problem wiht it, but, well... that's why you
have to roll the die :-/

I suspect that the Ark Royal you mentioned has to remove more than just two
grades of armour in order to fit 54 Mass of systems, though...

Regards,

Regards,

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 DracSpy@aol.com wrote:

> Bellepherion class missile carrier:

i think you probably mean Bellerophon'.

> Ark Royal hull, remove 2 grades of armour, add 6 SMLs and 18 reloads.

sounds fine to me. it may not work, but it's legal and not entirely cheesy.

tom

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 DracSpy@aol.com wrote:

> Opps.

Don't you mean "oops"?

> > sounds fine to me. it may not work, but it's legal and not entirely

I'd say that it is potentially cheesy due to the significant departure from
the standard NAC form of ships. Why would they convert a carrier to

carry all missiles? I could see MT missiles as a full compliment instead

of fighters, but SM's are very different, they'd be more inclined to convert
an old battle wagon or something.

In a message dated 1/31/2000 11:54:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk writes:

> > Bellepherion class missile carrier:

Opps.

> > Ark Royal hull, remove 2 grades of armour, add 6 SMLs and 18

Okay, thanks. What part is cheasy?
-Stephen

> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:

Going back to old Starfire rules, the Arachnids used capital ships armed with
Antimatter "Ramming Bombs" to close with enemy carriers and blow 'em up (they
had no fighter capability) the Capital ships were big enough to have a chance
of surviving to close with the enemy.

> -----Original Message-----

In a message dated 1/31/2000 5:17:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> MWikan@mailhost.accolade.com writes:

> Going back to old Starfire rules, the Arachnids used capital ships

As I Starfire player I know. These would be more inline with a SMBHAWK pod.
-Stephen

In a message dated 1/31/2000 2:34:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:

> > Opps.

Opps that I misspelled it.

> > > sounds fine to me. it may not work, but it's legal and not

Okay, maybe one of the ships from the NAC reinforcements page.
-Stephen

In a message dated 1/31/2000 2:56:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:

> I suspect that the Ark Royal you mentioned has to remove more than

6 fighter groups at 9 mass each gives you 54 mass. 6xSML (18) plus 18 salvoes
is 54 mass. It looks like you get to keep the two grades of armour (yes, I had
forgoten to state that the fighter groups were removed).
-Stephen

> devans@uneb.edu wrote:

> However, for a one-off scenerio where such a ship is escourted to try
such
> actions occurred during both WWI and WWII. Arguably much further if

Yes, you are thinking of St Nazaire. HMS Campbelltown, ex USS Buchanon.
Basically, the US gave 50 superannuated WW1 destroyers to the UK in 1940, and
received several billion dollars worth of naval bases (Bermuda amongst em) for
99 years. The destroyers at the time were priceless, (any old tub was useful,
as it freed up 1 fleet destroyer for
anti-invasion duties) even though it turned out a very few were in such
bad condition as to be unusable even in this role.

For such "Fire ships", I'd say that you should write all orders at the
beginning of the game. So great for taking out Battlestations, space docks,
orbitting drednaughts etc but not so good vs things that move.

In a message dated 2/1/2000 12:36:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au writes:

> For such "Fire ships", I'd say that you should write all orders at the

What about giving them a sort of pre programing for hunting ships?
-Stephen

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> As long as you use the standard FT ramming rules (first roll a "6" on

It's a bummer when 20 28-pt corvettes approach at speed 24+ intent on
ramming your ESU carrier though. Odds are you'll take 3 dice of damage. Then
the survivors do it all again, after 2 turns (cinematic).

Even the NSL can do this tactic - they small stuff doesn't move as fast,
but it takes more than 1 hit to pop.

Alan wrpte:

> It's a bummer when 20 28-pt corvettes

You need to ram with some 7-10 28-point scouts (FSE Mistrals, no?) to
cripple a Konstantin (2 thresholds), or with pretty much all of them to kill
it. The odds for that aren't particularly high. Of course the ones that fail
to ram get to shoot.

> Odds are you'll take 3 dice of damage.

Ie, one or two of the scouts hit. Yes, sounds pretty normal.

> Then the survivors do it all again, after 2 turns (cinematic).

Are you entirely sure there will be any survivors able to try again?
<g>

Later,