> Hey all,
OK, here we go: these are some VERY rough outlines that I posted to the
playtesters a short while ago for comments, so I may as well release them to
the wider audience. They will form the core of the fleet design doctrines in
the Fleet Book. Note that nothing which follows is yet confirmed, and anything
MAY get changed between now and publication of the FB!
Some of the systems mentioned are new ones that will be detailed in the FB
(and later in FTIII): HBS is Heavy Beam System (which will be a variant of the
one used in the EFSB), while SMB is Salvo Missile Battery (a completely new
(to FT, that is) type of missile system). Armour will also use a new system
(similar to additional damage boxes) rather than the "Kra'Vak" style armour
rules in MT.
1) NAC: Mainly general-purpose ships, using a broad mix of weapons and
systems - beams, torps and SMBs. HBSs are frequently used on heavier
classes. Some designs are be specialised, but most are multi-role.
Strong screens are the primary passive defence, though some armour is employed
especially on the heavier units. Mobility is generally average-to-good.
Fighters are normally based on specialised carriers which rely on supporting
ships for much of their defence.
2) ESU: Most ships are beam-heavy in their armament, with a sprinkling
of SMBs on some classes. HBSs and torps are used relatively little. Armour and
screen use is fairly balanced, many ships carrying both. Mobility is average
for most ships. Fighters are operated from specialised carriers; these ships
generally have more offensive armament and tougher defences than NAC
counterparts, but carry correspondingly fewer fighters. Many ESU ship designs,
especially the Cruiser and small Capital types, are optimised
for long-term independant operations.
3) NSL: Another beam-heavy force, using few SMBs or Torps, but HBSs are
common where mass allows. NSL doctrine is for powerful ships in offence and
defence, with mobility a lower priority - thrust levels tend to be low.
Armour is used heavily, often in preference to screens. Fighters tend to be
based in smallish quantities on the large general combat ships rather than
specific carrier designs.
4) FSE: SMBs are used extensively (with good magazine capacities where mass is
available), with beam weapons seen as secondary systems. Some
specialised Torp-armed classes exist. FSE ships are relatively fragile,
with a lower priority on defences than (say) the NSL, but this is partly
offset by the fact that their large capital ships are VERY big. As with the
ESU, fighter carriers are seen as multi-role ships and carry other
offensive systems besides their fighter complement. Mobility is a priority,
with most classes having good thrust levels.
Good work, Jon!
If the Fleetbook has not gone to press yet, I have the following request:
Please include ships for some of the minor powers. If you are taking the view
that they are purchasing ships from the major powers, please include a little
blurb what power they are purchasing from (or what their priority is if buying
from more than one source).
Anxiously looking forward to the Fleetbook,
Of course this omits the U.N.S.C. vessels, which is alright since they are
highly classified....but what the heck, i'll let you in on the secret.
U.N.S.C. ships tend to look dark due to the RAM (Radar Absorbent Material)
they are encased in, this also follows the "Blach Helicopter" tradition. As
far as armaments go the smaller vessels tend to be highly specialized
(the ever popular pulse torp destroyer, uni-directional bean gunboat,
and the fleet defense ships as some examples). Cruisers tend to be more
powerfull on their front arcs than anywhere else, with the two following ships
as classic examples:
Defiant class:
Mass:36 thrust:6
4 A-batts forward firing
2 B-batts forward firing
2 screens 2 PDAF's
Vor'cha class:
1 pulse torp
2 A-batts forward firing
2 B-batts forward firing
2 screens 2 PDAF
essentially the same ship with minor alterations.
Capitals on the other hand tend to be multi role ships, bristling with beam
weaponry and full screens, the occational ship having average to good thrust.
Carriers are usually dedicated heavy capitals ( mass 100, 8 fighter groups,
nothing else) or small escort caps (mass 38, 3 fighter groups,1
PDAF or C-batt).
Now that you know U.N. secrets, don't go divulging them arround, espcially to
any bipedal insectoids, green blobs, little grey men, or Elvis Impersonators
(everybody KNOWS they are really alien agents) you might see out there.
</LURK>
> they are encased in, this also follows the "Blach Helicopter"
Commander: "Battlegroup, this is chommand. Assume attach vechtors
and fire at will." Will: "What did I do?"
> (the ever popular pulse torp destroyer, uni-directional bean gunboat,
"Captain! I'm tracking incoming Limas at 5 o'clock low!"
"Fire the Beano-DAF!"
Sorry. Had to.
<LURK>
> Cris wrote:
> Of course this omits the U.N.S.C. vessels, which is alright since they
....... uni-directional bean gunboat....
Ah, the feared "Haricot" and "Red Kidney" class ships...?? <VERY BIG GRIN>
> Good work, Jon!
I may include some notes on minor navies if I get the chance, but a detailed
treatment of them will probably have to wait for a future volume. The main
slant of the FB will be the four major powers' ships, and it will be pretty
full just with them.
In message <l03010d02b0fdd7b95b1b@[195.89.161.32]>
> Ground Zero Games <jon@gzero.dungeon.com> wrote:
> >Hey all,
Excellent! I don't have to change my own NSL design doctrine:)
> Cris wrote:
Even worse! The feared "String" class in both a Green and Yellow variant and
the Scout variant (with hyperalert crew) known as the "Coffee" class...
<URK.....SARCASM DETECTOR OVERLOAD....SENSORS FAILING...SENSIBILITY
TOO....>
/************************************************
> Cristobal A. Mera wrote:
tradition.
> As far as armaments go the smaller vessels tend to be highly
Cris, The most closely guarded secret in UNSC is who the Political Security
Officers are who are posted to the ships. The ships themselves are products of
the major powers and are about as secret as the amount of Toilet paper on the
ship.
(and the major powers do not sell the best ships/technology to
UNSC because they do not want the information spread across the entire
universe!)
The cruisers do not compute! They seem to have an overabundant
number of weapons for the stated mass. (My estimate is mass 46-48,
a truly impressive cruiser.) Unless these are the "Official UNSC" displacement
values.
Bye for now,
HEY! I'll let you know that the amount of toilet paper aboard U.N.S.C. vessels
is extremely confidential as it reflects on the ship's mission lenght! By the
way, who says U.N. vessels are merely bought from the major powers (OK,Ok, so
maybe the survey cruisers, cargo vessels, and the other "pidly" stuff might
be, but not the combat ships!!!) In fact i have it in good confidence that
they were made specially for U.N. use (i should know, i made mine).
The reason the cruisers do not compute is because we use a different system
for Batt. mass:
1 arc (A): cost:7, mass:2 2 arc (A): cost:10, mass:3 3 arc (A): cost:13,
mass:4
and so forth for B's and C's
This is of course part of shifty U.N. business, and of course you don't really
know that....
Cris M.
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, John Leary wrote:
> Cristobal A. Mera wrote:
> Cris,