As an Australian Naval Officer I really feel I must interject here
<g>...
We have had 3 CVs- HMAS SYDNEY, HMAS MELBOURNE and HMAS VENGEANCE, on
loan from the RN from 1952 until 1955 while MELBOURNE was being completed (We
almost had a fourth, HMAS AUSTRALIA, in 1982 but HMS INVINCIBLE was
suddenly taken off the market :-). This 2 Carrier policy suited our
defence commitments with SEATO and the SE Asian Strategic Reserve. We have no
CVs now, but that too reflects our current defence policy. This is a simple
example of how Fleet compositions change with policy, which in turn changes
with circumstances and allied capabilities.
We have also had a Submarine Force, admittedly on and off, since 1919...so
what is the equivalent strategic platform in the FT universe I wonder?
Vessels simliar to the seaplane tender concept aka HMAS ALBATROSS (the ship,
not the place) carrying a single sqn would also be the go for long range
patrol tasks but also with a bit of sting for raiding and
anti-commerce operations (although WE would NEVER go into that sort of
Buisness!)
I agree that an OU fleet would also have numerous smaller combatants doubling
in patrol and response tasks, but seconded to fleet operations when necessary.
OU Fleet ops and tactics would also be heavily influenced by the NAC...
And if I may be so immodest, OU vessels would have a higher than average skill
level if using the optional skill grade rules discussed here recently.
> At 16:58 11/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
May I say that your battleship design is just down right strange. 14
submuntions packs? Aquire target, fire, then rack off? The whole idea (using
it or facing it) just makes me shudder. The other thing we should consider is
how close are relations between the OU and the major states? If the OU can
depend on outside support (or that it can stay out of any major conflict) then
the fleet and its individual units will be smaller. If the OU has to go it
entirely alone then I think
it will have 3-4 really big fleet units and that all capitals will
emphasize survivability (good armour plus screens). Besides I've already
painted up a Superdread and 2 fleet carriers!
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
The BB design is a close range capship killer, but I did give it enough beam
weapons for an extended engagement (I've been caught without ammo before).
With the new fleet book fire arcs, it can take the whole game before unloading
all the subpacs (as they cover all the broadsides). It's also supposed to make
people shudder (I did say it was an obscene design!)
> Besides I've already painted up a Superdread and 2 fleet
Haven't seen the painted ones yet (have seen the unpainted ones though).
'Neath Southern Skies
> At 00:34 13/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
Well I haven't even seen that much of what Nic has planned. It's just that I
already have and NSL superdread, 2 NAC fleet carriers (modified), 1 NAC
battledread (modified), 1 ESU battledread, 1 NAC battleship (modified), 1 FSE
light carrier (modified) and 1 NAC superdread that I've converted to a CVA,
all in my dreamtime colour scheme. I ain't changing!