> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Our major new model launch for Salute is a whole load of NEW ships for
> the ESU - all-new designs, while still keeping enough styling cues
> losses of the war. Thus you can have some of the new designs in a
> as venerable survivors of the war years!
May I plead for:
Some more FCT ships. One destroyer design really isn't enough.
A rationalisation of the OU situation. Eureka doesn't carry frigates: GZG
doesn't carry lt carriers. Yes, I know there's some history there.
A list of ships so SSDs can be created.
BTW love the idea above, I assume ESU is just the most urgent.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
The FCT are on the list to be expanded into a full fleet, watch this
space....
> A rationalisation of the OU situation.
Oerjan has just designed a very nice BC and a BB for the OUDF, which
we'll have in production very soon - watch this space!
Nic's never been happy with the quality of the FF mini (yes, it WAS a
"quickie" conversion of a cut-down DD), but no-one who has bought any
from us has ever complained about them to my knowledge.... personally I think
they're fine. The odd thing is that his reason for not sending us the CVL was
that he was thought that was a bit rough too,
though he still produces it.... :-/
Maybe we'll just have to do a new CVL based on Oerjan's BC/BB parts.
> A list of ships so SSDs can be created.
Yes, the ESU was (in our opinion) the most in need of some new
additions/replacements for the old minis. Next up will probably be
the NAC, with some new classes for the NSL and FSE being dropped in here and
there.
Best,
> Yes, the ESU was (in our opinion) the most in need of some new
Just for my own info, are the older designs still going to be available? Are
there going to be new stats for the new ships, or are these mostly
replacements to use old stats?
I know your description:
> for the ESU - all-new designs, while still keeping enough styling
sounds like they'll have new stats, but still wondering if the old ships will
be in the catalog. If not, no problem; I've plenty waiting paint as it
is. And, I've always had a fondness for ESU's 'obsolete' fleet. ;->=
I'm assuming the new designs will be more radical departures than the
Voroshilev and Volga designs...
The_Beast
> > Yes, the ESU was (in our opinion) the most in need of some new
The idea is for new stats, but for now you can just tinker with the old ones
slightly, as ESU basic doctrine will remain much the same.
As to the old minis, they will remain listed and available at least for the
near future (the new ships will have different codes running in the usual
sequence from 231, eg: FT235 for the new DD, FT238 for the new CH, FT242 for
the new SDN etc). We won't guarantee that the old minis will be around for
ever, and as moulds deteriorate it's
likely that we won't be replacing them - though having said that,
we've just remoulded the original 209 and the "wing" section from the
210/211 because the old ones were getting very hard to cast.
Even if we eventually delete some/all of the "old" ships from the
lists, they should remain available to "cast-on-demand" special order
as long as the moulds last out.
When you consider that most of the early ESU and NAC ships were
sculpted by CMD back in about 1991-92, they've been in continuous
production for a lot longer than most game miniatures!
> I'm assuming the new designs will be more radical departures than the
Oh, yes.... ;-)
First photos in a day or two!
> The_Beast
> Jon T. wrote:
> Our major new model launch for Salute is a whole load of NEW ships
Bother, you beat me to it <g> My Manchuria-style SDN is still only
half-finished, so unless you want *three* ESU SDNs eventually I guess
I'll drop that project. Or convert it into something else, at least <g>
> Nic's never been happy with the quality of the FF mini (yes, it WAS a
Having seen Alan's photos of the CVL, I can sort of understand what Nic is
thinking of: while there's nothing wrong with the *layout* of the CVL, some of
the *surface details* (the engine exhausts in particular) are rather cruder
than on the smaller OU ships.
But what about the FT921 OU Heavy Fighters? *Are* you going to get them from
Nic, or will I have to copy them too like I did with the CVL...?
They'd make perfect "not-Pilums" to oppose my FT422 Kra'Vak
"not-Avengers"...
> Maybe we'll just have to do a new CVL based on Oerjan's BC/BB parts.
Don't you dare! You'll make the new OU CVL from the *CVL* parts still
sitting half-detailed on my workbench along with the all-new heavy fleet
auxiliary, and nothing else! <G> (Hopefully I'll be able to free up more
time for sculpting now that I've gotten the domestic construction tasks out of
the way and the old apartment is safely sold off...)
FWIW the new OU CVL has the same configuration (single outrigger) and
dimensions as the Eureka one but (somewhat) different surface detail; the BC
and BB OTOH are trimarans. It would be possible to make a mirror image
of the CVL's hangar pod to make a BB-sized trimaran carrier... but
that'd
take even more time :-/
Later,
> Our major new model launch for Salute is a whole load of NEW ships
Bother, you beat me to it <g> My Manchuria-style SDN is still only
half-finished, so unless you want *three* ESU SDNs eventually I guess
I'll drop that project. Or convert it into something else, at least <g>
> Nic's never been happy with the quality of the FF mini (yes, it WAS a
Having seen Alan's photos of the CVL, I can sort of understand what Nic is
thinking of: while there's nothing wrong with the *layout* of the CVL, some of
the *surface details* (the engine exhausts in particular) are rather cruder
than on the smaller OU ships.
But what about the FT921 OU Heavy Fighters? *Are* you going to get them from
Nic, or will I have to copy them too like I did with the CVL...?
They'd make perfect "not-Pilums" to oppose my FT422 Kra'Vak
"not-Avengers"...
> Maybe we'll just have to do a new CVL based on Oerjan's BC/BB parts.
Don't you dare! You'll make the new OU CVL from the *CVL* parts still
sitting half-detailed on my workbench along with the all-new heavy fleet
auxiliary, and nothing else! <G> (Hopefully I'll be able to free up more
time for sculpting now that I've gotten the domestic construction tasks out of
the way and the old apartment is safely sold off...)
FWIW the new OU CVL has the same configuration (single outrigger) and
dimensions as the Eureka one but (somewhat) different surface detail; the BC
and BB OTOH are trimarans. It would be possible to make a mirror image
of the CVL's hangar pod to make a BB-sized trimaran carrier... but
that'd take even more time, and it'd *still* be smaller than the CVLs of other
fleets, so I'm not really sure that it'd be worthwhile. It'd require that the
OUDF is rich enough to afford warships that large (not to mention
capable of building them), too :-/
Later,
> Oerjan wrote:
Hope so.
> FWIW the new OU CVL has the same configuration (single outrigger) and
the BC and BB OTOH are trimarans. <
That sounds great.
> It would be possible to make a mirror image of the CVL's hangar pod to
Smaller, but not necessarily smaller in terms of punch. Frankly, the CVLs of
the major powers are rather overly large for what they carry. The NAC's
Invincible class is a good example; I refuse to believe that
the contents of the command pod of an Ark Royal takes up _that_ much
space in that big hull! Let the OU design philosophy be small, fast, flexible
hulls that carry adequate to heavy weapons loads.
> It'd require that the OUDF is rich enough to afford warships that
And what makes you think it's not? Hey, if the Japanese and the srizonified
FCT can have entire bl**dy fleets, the OU deserves one!
<mutter>"Northern Hemisphere Chauvinists... Texans... enema...
matchbox!"</mutter>
Annoyed Phil, who'll award a Trivia Prize to anyone who can identify the joke
he was just muttering.
----
"If you let a smile be your umbrella... you'll get wet teeth!"
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 17:48, Phillip Atcliffe wrote:
Do you know how to bury a Texan? Give him an enema and bury him in a matchbox
If that's the one, then half the prize should go to Google :-)
Anent my offer of a Trivia Prize (or was it a trivial prize? <g>),
> Samuel Penn wrote:
> If that's the one, then half the prize should go to Google :-) <
Close... I know a more elaborate non-riddle form, but you've got the
gist of it.
Phil
----
.sig file supplied by British Railtrack ISP PLC. Currently out of order due to
the wrong kind of bits on the net.
Gah. Sorry about the double post, folks...
> Phil Atcliffe wrote:
> >But what about the FT921 OU Heavy Fighters? *Are* you going to get
Pray for it to happen. And make sure the deity of your choice understands that
you *mean* it, too...
> >It would be possible to make a mirror image of the CVL's hangar pod
The only way it can be smaller in terms of *size* than the other nations' CVLs
and yet avoid being smaller in terms of *punch* is by skimping on either
engines or survivability. Skimping on survivability goes directly
against the established OUDF design doctrine; skimping on engines would
mean a thrust-2 carrier unable both to catch the enemy to use its punch
and to escape in case its punch turns out to be insufficient.
> Frankly, the CVLs of the major powers are rather overly large for
The command pod of an Ark Royal is as big as or bigger than an entire NAC
DD, ie. Mass 30 or more - and that's without counting the pod's long
"neck". The Ark Royal also has bigger engine pods than the Inflexible, but
that extra Mass is easily accounted for by the Ark Royal's larger
engines -
18 Mass bigger than those on the Inflexible.
So what does the Ark Royal use its 30+ Mass command pod for? Well, the
main part of it has to be those 18 Mass of stuff which the Inflexible carries
in its main hull but the AR has to put somewhere else due to its larger
fighter group. With the AR's larger engine pods already being taken up by her
larger engines, the only place left is the command pod. On top of that the Ark
Royal's screen generators are 6 Mass larger than the Inflexible's,
and she has an extra Class-2 battery using up another 3 Mass... throw in
the command pod's hull structure and armour, and you've already accounted for
its entire Mass.
> Let the OU design philosophy be small, fast, flexible hulls that carry
Ships which are small, fast *and* heavily armed are by necessity
glass-jawed - their small hulls don't have enough Mass left over for
hull integrity and defences once they've bought all those engines and weapons.
That's the exact opposite of the OU's BORON design philosophy: BORON ships are
extremely durable for their size, but most of them are only moderately
fast (thrust rating 4) and their armaments are short-ranged (though
quite powerful once they get into range).
> >It'd require that the OUDF is rich enough to afford warships that
The dual facts that 1) the OU has a tiny population compared to its rivals and
2) Alan Brain who has written the OUDF background has stated pretty explicitly
that the OUDF is hard pressed to build even a reasonable number of battleships
and battlecruisers, with the battleships being the largest units the OU's
naval yards are technically capable of building...
> Hey, if the Japanese and the srizonified FCT can have entire bl**dy
The Japanese have somewhere between ten and twenty times the population of the
entire OU, and the nation is heavily industrialized. While I'm not sure
exactly how large the FCT is population-wise, it is quite safe to bet
that both its population and economy are bigger than the OU's.
Until the ScanFed starts fielding heavy capitals, you have no realistic
grounds for complaining about the OUDF's small size :-/
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Let the OU design philosophy be small, fast, flexible hulls that
> (though quite powerful once they get into range).
Exactly.
They're verging on being "under armed", the only thing that prevents
this is concentrating on medium-short ranged weaponry. The extra mass
that others put in weaponry goes in hull on OUDF ships.
At long range, they have minimal firepower, often none. At medium range, their
firepower is, at best, average. At "effective range" as the OU puts it, they
have a small edge in weaponry (assuming they have survived without too much
damage).
At all ranges though, they're likely to be significantly more durable than
their opponents. OU tactics are therefore to minimise "long range" duels
(where the OU is not just at a disadvantage, it's hopeless) and get into
"medium range" as soon as possible. As soon as this happens, it is on even
terms with any opponent: approximately equal (sometimes slightly inferior)
weaponry, but definitely superior durability.
At short range... well, just don't get within 12 MU of an OU force, or you'll
get a nasty surprise. The OU tries very hard to get into short range.
> >It'd require that the OUDF is rich enough to afford warships that
It's somewhat ameliorated by the OUDF having a small army even for its size,
and a much larger navy (proportionately) than you'd expect for its
population. Much of their army would be considered "special forces" in any
other nation. But that advantage is completely removed by the OU having to
maintain
such a vast patrol fleet, to cover its many useless- or semi-useless
systems. The OU is really, really good at building patrol ships. But anything
the
size of a light cruiser or above requires a moderate sized shipyard. Anything
larger than mass 100 or so is very difficult for them, and can
only be built at a a very low rate. Not ships/year, but years/ship for
each of about 4 major shipyards, rather than the 20+ that Japan has.
Note that the current OU "CVL" is only the physical size of a small Battleship
or large Battlecruiser. It carries 2 fighter groups, not 4. It's more like a
small Battledreadnaught than a carrier, and is tactically used as such. It's
the largest that can be built at normal
speeds in the cruiser-sized shipyards that the OU has for its regular
fleet (apart from the 4 'specials' mentioned above).
They also have a problem, in that although the OU "disruptor" is more
easily manufactured in low-industrial-base facilities than other types
of beam weapon, it doesn't scale up - there's a definitely limit to
size. This is why the OU favours Beam-2s.
The OU is high-tech but low-industrial capacity.
Salute was excellent - masses to see. And I've got some new ESU. Very
nice Jon. I just need to get round to painting them now.
Cheers,
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:06:29PM +0100, Paul J Foster wrote:
> nice Jon. I just need to get round to painting them now.
They're a bit reminiscent of bumpy-forehead-honourable-warrior-aliens
in design, but I certainly like the look of them. Once I've painted some of my
IJSF ships...
R