> > From a Minimax viewpoint (ie how effective they are in a 1-off
Based on playtests where Tuvalu Block IIs were against NAC Torp-armed
Vandenburgs, NSL and ESU cruisers with forward-arc-only Class 3s, and
where a lot of the ships spent over 50% of their time in PA or SA arcs.
> What they do have in spades is survivability, but
Agreed.
> >At 24" their increased toughness and increased numbers (they're about
> 1-3% cheaper per MASS is more accurate for combat-equipped BORON
How did that 0 creep in? Must have been from a Lee-Lu shipyards sales
brochure. The Tuvalu Block I with 2 Gunpacks is described as Very Expensive.
In fact, it costs about as much as a standard CA. Tuvalu Block I is what, 8
pts cheaper? call it 3%.
> >Their unusually wide firing arcs makes them more likely to be within
Compare Tuvalu Block I or II with gunpacks vs 267-280 pt NSL, ESU or NAC
CAs. Compare Numbat with Furious for example.
The FSE is equally good as the OU when it comes to firing arcs,but has half
the hull boxes. Though maybe not after they've used all their SMs, even a
Tuvalu Block II could only take 2 or so SMs without taking 2
thresholds (assuming no PDS - in fact, about 3 is needed).
There are plenty of examples of ships from various navies having as good or
better firing arcs. Just compare like with like when it comes to costs. And
remember that every OU ship has good firing arcs. Whereas,
say, a reasonable mix of Tacomas, Hurons, Furious, Vandenburg-Ts have
some ships with excellent dogfighting ability, and some that are Hell On
Wheels in the forward arc, but not so good SA and PA. Similarly with NSL and
ESU.
So I'm talking Fleets rather than individual ships.
> > They'd be overly effective if it wasn't for the fact that most
The OU would LOVE to get its hands on Pulsar-Cs. The problem they have
at the moment is too many systems to repair, they'd like to be able to
consolidate.
> >I also had a look at hulls that might well be made in a hurry
They'd be doing that too. Probably with 2xB2-6 and 2xPDS though. And the
mod -screen+B2/6 mod wouldn't be done on existing hulls, it would be on
new construction only - Snake Block II and Numbat Block II.
> Finally, should the Waikato cost 312? I get the NPV to 314 (ie. 322,
Hmmm. I've already looked at this twice, but if OO says the maths are wrong,
then I'll go through it again, expecting to find an error.
TMF 102-8 * 3 = 282
+ 18 for the 2 Hangers
+ 5 for the beams and pds
+ 4 for the 2 FCs
+ 5 for the screen
314 it is. *SIGH*
Many thanks. Next time I'll find my spreadsheet rather than attempting to do
it from memory.
> Alan Brain wrote:
> >> From a Minimax viewpoint (ie how effective they are in a 1-off
OK. This might be a good time to point out that the Tuvalu Block II is the
widest-arced of all the BORON ships when fitted with beam modules, while
the Vandenburgs (both variants), Voroshilev, Markgraf and Furious designs
are five of the ten narrowest-arced designs in FB1 (the other five being
the ESU BC, BB and SDN, plus the SMP-armed strike variants of the Falke
and Lenov scouts).
IOW, these playtests don't really say anything about how the *other* BORON
ships (which have narrower arcs than the Tuvalu Block IIs) compare to the
*other* about sixty FB1 designs (which have wider arcs than the ten narrowest
designs).
> Compare Tuvalu Block I or II with gunpacks vs 267-280 pt NSL, ESU or
Compare a Numbat/Gunpack with the Radetzky, or give it a P-torp module
(like the Numbat on the Example page) and compare it to a Beijing. Compare
a River/Standard with a Volga or Tibet, a River/SMR with a Trieste, or a
Snake with a Novgorod or Tacoma. Compare a Spider with anything you like
-
the closest equivalent is the Tacoma/T variant, but the Tacoma/T has a
couple of B1s.
In these comparisons, the BORON ships look average or even narrow-arced
compared to the FB1 ships.
> The FSE is equally good as the OU when it comes to firing arcs,but has
<snort> So the BORON ships all use 60% of their Mass for hull boxes, then?
They'd have to, in order to have twice as many hull boxes as the FSE.
The FSE match the Numbats and frigates in hull boxes on an equal-cost
basis, and have about 75% the hull boxes of the Rivers and Tuvalus. What
they *do* have half as much of is beam batteries, but those missiles of theirs
might even the odds out a bit if they're lucky <g>
> There are plenty of examples of ships from various navies having as
> Ahem. A bit further down you wrote:
> So I'm talking Fleets rather than individual ships.
The only way to simultaneously talk about fleets *and* compare like
cost/size with like is if you force ships of similar size to pair off
against one another and ignore the rest of the battle. I don't think that
that's what you intended.
> And remember that every OU ship has good firing arcs.
In that case you're saying that a Spider, Snake or Numbat, or just about
any BORON ship carrying an SMR or P-torp module, is *not* an OU ship.
None of these have particularly good firing arcs, after all. Even the Standard
module can't give the Numbat significantly wider firing arcs than FB1
mainstream, and a Numbat/P-torp is about as narrow-arced as the NAC
Furious
arc-wise (more maneuverable, but even less of its firepower covering the
rear 180).
Heck, even a Tuvalu Block 1 with twin Gunpack modules falls in the middle
of the FB1 range arc-wise - though when it comes to packing lots of
firepower into a small hull it is of course quite exceptional <g> The other
Tuvalu beam outfits, and the River/Standard, are quite wide-arced - but
they're the widest the OU gets. Everything else is narrower.
> Whereas, say, a reasonable mix of Tacomas, Hurons, Furious,
A reasonable mix consisting exclusively of Rivers and Tuvalus with Standard
or Defence modules will indeed be "unusually wide-arced" compared to the
above NAC force. That is very true.
However, once you mix in some Numbats or Snakes (or Spiders!) in the BORON
force, or you put SMR or P-torp modules on some of the ships (even on
Tuvalus or Rivers) - then all of a sudden the BORON force has firing
arcs which are quite similar to those of the NAC fleet.
> >>They'd be overly effective if it wasn't for the fact that most
Build a module with six B1s. That's pretty much the same thing as an
all-arc Pulser-C <shrug>
Later,
> Alan Brain wrote:
> >Based on playtests where Tuvalu Block IIs were against NAC Torp-armed
There you have it: all but the FSE have their heavy cruisers having narrow
fire arcs. And in local games, heavy cruisers make up a large part of most
fleets. Now in other parts of the world, the situation may be different. For
example, should the local norm be for no ships over mass 50, then things will
be quite different.
> IOW, these playtests don't really say anything about how the *other*
You have a point: perhaps the local norm isn't universal. Our fleets
tend to have about 1/3 of pts values in each of the old "Capital",
"Cruiser" and "Escort" categories. As you've pointed out, for all except
the FSE, this means that 1/3 of the ships have exceptionally narrow
firing arcs. You might note that in the "numbers in service", the Tuvalus
outnumber
the Numbats quite significantly - they're the mainstay of the fleet.
> Compare a Numbat/Gunpack with the Radetzky, or give it a P-torp module
Compare
> a River/Standard with a Volga or Tibet, a River/SMR with a Trieste, or
That's the trouble with modules - while most of the ships have
standard/gunpacks, some of the modules (such as the p-torp) have very
narrow firing arcs. But these are exceptions rather than the rule, they tend
to be used for specific tasks.
> >The FSE is equally good as the OU when it comes to firing arcs,but
OK, for "hull" read "hull and armour", for "50%" read "43-48%" or some
such. Let's see, a 267 pt Tuvalu Block II vs what, an FSE Heavy Cruiser or
Battlecruiser?. It is a bit larger (81 mass) than one, and a bit smaller (94?
96?) mass than the next. It has 50% in hull and 3 armour vs what, 30% hull and
no armour? Depending on your exact comparisons, you
get something like twice the number of hull+armour as the nearest
comparable ship.
Of course if you were comparing a River to a Jeanne D'Arc it would be
different. Not that such a comparison is meaningful.
> The FSE match the Numbats and frigates in hull boxes on an equal-cost
What
> they *do* have half as much of is beam batteries, but those missiles
Luck has little to do with it, it's skill <g>. Actually, skill just determines
how many SMs get to hit, the damage that they do is very variable. I've been
hit with 2 SMs that did a total of over 40 pts before now, vs the 21 that
would be the average. And hit an opponent with 6 SMs that did a total of 13
pts, vs the 63 that would be average. Both in the same competition.
> The only way to simultaneously talk about fleets *and* compare like
My thesis was based upon what has happened in actual battles, where *once they
got in close* and *using cinematic*, and where every turn nearly every ship on
both sides was using the maximum it could in thrust to turn, then the OU
fleets consistently had more beam dice able to fire on their primary target
than their opponents. Fire on secondary targets was about equal.
> >And remember that every OU ship has good firing arcs.
Mumble mumble quibble mumble mumble. Fair enough. Yes, a ship with an uncommon
module is "not an OU ship" by this definition, any more than a
Waldberg-M is an NSL ship. I should have inserted the word "typical".
> >Whereas, say, a reasonable mix of Tacomas, Hurons, Furious,
I'll even extend that to cover NSL and ESU fleets. But maybe that's because
the Radetsky isn't a popular design here, most people prefer a
mix of light- and heavy- cruisers to escort cruisers. The point is, that
many typical OU fleets actually do consist of nothing but Rivers and Tuvalus,
with maybe a Waikato for support, and a Snake or Numbat for
pursuit duties. There are more Tuvalus than (combat- rather than VIP- or
Raider- )Numbats and Waikatos put together, and more Rivers than all
other designs combined. Spiders are used when the opponent could have an
SDN or Super-Carrier with Screen-2s, and otherwise don't appear. Even
Snakes are relatively rare.
> However, once you mix in some Numbats or Snakes (or Spiders!) in the
True. They do have this option. The background though states that the
P-torp modules were unsuccessful, the Spiders hunt in packs and only go
for things like Komarovs which have class-2 screens, and the SMRs are
used for additional fire support when operating with carrier groups. By the
same token, you could say that an NAC fleet uses lots of SMs since it's
possible to refit Furious and Valley Forge class with them, and Majestics have
them. But by my standards, the NAC doesn't use SMs, and the fleet tactics
against them wouldn't take massed SM fire into account.
> >The OU would LOVE to get its hands on Pulsar-Cs. The problem they
It has 2 important differences: one is that it's better vs fighters, but
more importantly, repairing it is less easy than a pulsar-C. If you take
a threshold at 4+, you have a 50% chance of losing the pulsar-C, but a
reasonably good chance if you have 3 DCPs of repairing it quickly (and having
the DCPs ready for repairing other things, like manoeuvre drives,
fire cons etc). But on a 6-B1 module, you'll probably lose 2-4 B1s, and
take much longer to fix things. So long, in fact, that you probably won't even
bother after the first B1 (if that).
This is particularly important for OU designs, which have to be prepared to
take a lot of hits on the way in, and still be effective fighting ships. Their
big weakness is that they really need more DCPs than they have.
> Alan Brain wrote:
> >OK. This might be a good time to point out that the Tuvalu Block II
Or if the local norm uses more capitals, or more light cruisers than heavies.
In fact, as long as the local norm fleet mix emphasizes anything *else* than
CHs, the fleet's combined firing arcs immediately get wider!
> >IOW, these playtests don't really say anything about how the *other*
> and "Escort" categories. As you've pointed out, for all except the FSE,
> this means that 1/3 of the ships have exceptionally narrow firing arcs.
Only if you equate "Cruiser" with "Heavy Cruiser". The CLs OTOH have quite
wide firing arcs, comparable to or wider than BORON ships with Gunpack
modules, and so is the NSL medium. The ESU medium cruisers (Beijings and
Gorshkovs) are narrower, but not very far behind.
> You might note that in the "numbers in service", the Tuvalus outnumber
Sure. But 40% of the Tuvalus (ie., the Block Is) are "usually" used as
"self-escorting troop transports" etc., whereas the only Numbats
mentioned
as non-combat units are the two VIP transports. 17 Tuvalu Block IIs
don't
seem to outnumber the 15 non-VIP Numbats all that significantly...
> >>The FSE is equally good as the OU when it comes to firing arcs,but
> Tuvalus. What >they *do* have half as much of is beam batteries, but
Alan, here you're just pulling figures out of thin air - you didn't even
get the hull strength of your own Tuvalu Block II right :-(
The Tuvalu Block II has 40% percent hull (not 50%) and three armour. That
gives it 32 hull and 3 armour, for a total of 35 damage points.
The FSE CH, the Jerez, is TMF 88 (which is usually considered to be *more*
than 81, not less), and has 26 hull boxes. Last time I checked, 35 was not
"something like twice the number" of 26; in fact 26 is almost exactly 75%
of 35 - which was the percentage I gave in my previous post.
If you instead look at it on an equal-mass basis (which, since all the
ships involved have about the same cost/mass ratio (3.3), is essentially
the same as an equal-cost basis), the Tuvalu Block II uses 35/81 = 43%
of its total Mass for damage boxes while the FSE ships use 30%. In other
words, the Tuvalu has about 45% more hull boxes than the same cost (~= same
mass) of FSE ships - or, conversely, the FSE ships have about 70% as
many hull boxes as the Tuvalu Block II. Slightly lower than the 75% I wrote
previously; sorry about that.
('Course, compared to a Block II the Jerez doesn't have only half as much
beam firepower - that comparison applied to the Tuvalu Block *I* with
twin GunPack or Standard modules, but that configuration has very nearly the
same number of damage boxes as the Jerez (27 vs 26).)
> >The FSE match the Numbats and frigates in hull boxes on an equal-cost
What
> >they *do* have half as much of is beam batteries, but those missiles
The luck with the dice was what I was thinking of, yes <g>
> I've been hit with 2 SMs that did a total of over 40 pts before now, vs
> the 21 that would be the average.
<scratches head> The average of 2 completely unopposed SM salvoes is
24.5,
against a single PDS it is 22, and against 2 PDSs (one opposing each salvo) it
is 19.5. How did you get an average of 21 on 2 salvoes?
> >The only way to simultaneously talk about fleets *and* compare like
which were fought against a quite specific enemy fleet mix, heavily
featuring some the narrowest-arced FB1 ships available. See the top of
this post.
> >>And remember that every OU ship has good firing arcs.
> Waldberg-M is an NSL ship. I should have inserted the word "typical".
Fair enough. The Snakes, Spiders and Numbats only make up about 40% of the
active-fleet BORON combat (as opposed to VIP-, Survey-, Cargo- etc)
ships,
so I guess they don't qualify as "typical" :-/
> >>Whereas, say, a reasonable mix of Tacomas, Hurons, Furious,
ESU? That's nice. A force consisting mostly of Volgas and Tibets out-arc
even a Tuvalu Block II/Standard. Just don't bring any Voroshilevs <g>
> But maybe that's because the Radetsky isn't a popular design here, most
> people prefer a mix of light- and heavy- cruisers to escort cruisers.
The Kronprinz Wilhelm is crippled by having only one FCS, but its fire arcs
are quite OK. Better than the Rad, same as a River/Gunpack <shrug>
> The point is, that many typical OU fleets actually do consist of
That's not what the numbers and notes on your web page suggests.
The Tuvalu Block Is are described as "usually carrying two different types
of pod, one military, one not, so they become self-escorting troop
transports, self-escorting cargo carriers and so on" which suggests that
they're not normally used as combat units any more than the VIP Numbats or
Raider Waikato. It is the Tuvalu Block IIs which are the mainstay of the
cruiser squadrons, and there are only 17 of those in the active fleet.
There are about as many non-VIP Numbats (15 active, 2 in reserve) as
there
are Tuvalu Block IIs (17 active, 1 in reserve) - there's no mention on
the
page of the non-VIP Numbats being used as Raiders or non-combat units.
If you include all the Freemantles in the reserve fleet in the "River"
category, then yes there are more Rivers than anything else in the fleet
(220 in all). The classification of these ships as "Freemantles" rather than
"Rivers" kinda suggests that there aren't enough modules to equip all of them
though (much like the NZ Mekos today). There are more "all other
combined" in active service (89) than there are ships *listed* as Rivers
(as opposed to Freemantles) in either active or reserve service (45+33 =
78).
Furthermore, if the "reserve fleet" refers to the OUPF the 33 reserve Rivers
are described as "Most... are fitted with either cargo, survey, or research
payload modules,...", in which case they're not going to go looking for
trouble (at least not trouble bigger than a pirate corvette).
(Curious: If the distinction between Freemantles in reserve and Rivers in
reserve doesn't relate to the number of modules available, what determines
which category a Freemantle/River ship goes into and why are the two
classes listed separately?)
Finally, in the previous post I specified "A reasonable mix consisting
exclusively of Rivers and Tuvalus with Standard or Defence modules" as
being unusually wide-arced - ie., not a mix using Gunpack modules,
because
the Gunpacks are themselves relatively narrow-arced. The comments on the
Module and Examples page suggest that the Standard modules are usually only
used on the carriers unless you're fighting a missile-heavy enemy. Your
comments below about the NAC not being missile users apply just as much to
the NSL (which have fewer missile-armed ships listed in FB1 than the NAC
has), which suggests that the Standard modules only feature heavily if you're
fighting the FSE.
So, to summarize: Going by what is written on your web page there are about as
many combat Tuvalus (Block IIs) as there are combat Numbats, there seems to be
nearly one Snake for every pair of combat Rivers (22 Snakes, 45
active + "a few" reserve Rivers), and the Standard modules necessary to
get
the BORON ships past FB1-average arc width are usually not used on the
dogfighting ships - instead they seem to favour the narrower-arced
Gunpack module.
Of course, this *is* an OU page. You can't really rely on the data given
there, can you? The Oceanics are known for deliberate misinformation, after
all <G>
> Spiders are used when the opponent could have an SDN or Super-Carrier
OK. That means that they're only ever fielded against ESU, since they're
the only FB fleet which uses level-2 screens (IIRC your gaming group
don't
use non-FB ships other than the OU?).
> >However, once you mix in some Numbats or Snakes (or Spiders!) in
No, it doesn't. It states that it was an interim measure before the Spiders
were built, but it says nothing about whether or not the modules were
successful - and I've seen far too many solutions that were intended as
interim measures but which turned out successful and were made permanent to
automatically assume that "interim" equals "unsuccessful".
> the Spiders hunt in packs
Yes
> and only go for things like Komarovs which have class-2 screens,
It says that this is what the Spiders were *designed* for, not that this is
the *only* thing they do. Considering how badly stretched the OUDF is, I'd be
very surprised indeed if they didn't use Spiders against ships with mere
level-1 screens on occasion.
> and the SMRs are used for additional fire support when operating with
Used *mainly* for additional fire support, but not exclusively according to
the Modules page. There's no mention about how often the carriers go into
action though, so it is hard to tell from the web page how often the missile
modules get used.
> By the same token, you could say that an NAC fleet uses lots of SMs
The NAC has more SML-armed units listed than the NSL has... a year or
two
back you said something to the effect "IMO the NSL is the best SM-armed
fleet in FB1" <shrug>
> >>The OU would LOVE to get its hands on Pulsar-Cs. The problem they
Have you actually *tried* this in combat now? I have. Last time I asked you
about this, you hadn't.
The problem with this scenario is that if you take a threshold at 4+,
that
was your third threshold. Unless you use Phalon-style Weak hulls, you
need
TMF 161+ to have three DCPs alive after taking the third threshold. On a
smaller ship (and all current BORON ships are smaller than TMF 161), you're
not very likely to repair even the Pulser before you're blown out of
existance - and if the enemy manages to push you over all three
thresholds before you get to close range, you've already lost the battle.
IME, for the first two thresholds the B1s give you a considerably better
chance of having *most* of your firepower operable when you get into range
than the Pulser does - especially when the ship has as few DCPs as the
BORONs have.
Later,
First, my thanks to OO for his very useful comments. He's put a lot of work
into not just picking nits (anyone can do that) but exposing any and all flaws
in my thesis. It's too bad we're at opposite ends of the planet, I could do
with an engineering partner like him. Hopefully one day we can meet.
Anyway, on with the motley.
> The CLs OTOH have quite
I don't have FB1 to hand at the moment, so am working off unreliable memory.
But let's try and find comparisons with a River class with Gunpack for
example. These are 40 mass. Reasonable comparative designs would be:
NSL - Kronprinz Wilhelm CL
FSE - Trieste (very close indeed)
ESU - Tibet CL
NAC - Huron CL
Note that apert from the Trieste, all are significantly larger, and classed as
Light Cruisers rather than (Super)Destroyers. It's not stated in the OUDF
page, but the OU uses Rivers in the Destroyer role (ie in flotillas like
Triestes) as well as light cruiser role (individual ships or as close escorts
in fleet action like Kpz Wilhelm) out of neccessity,
the Numbat class being rather specialised fast ships - then again, I
spose the Huron is the same.
In every case, either the River is significantly cheaper ( being
significantly smaller) with equal- or slightly-superior- toughness in
terms of hull + armour, OR it has better firing arcs, OR it has more
firepower at short range, *while retaining equality in all other respects*.
Any design can be made to be superior in one respect providing others suffer.
For the OU the one that suffers is long range, which means that you either
have advantages in toughness, cost, firing
arc, or close-range firepower, or some combination, depending upon your
opponent. Agreed you won't have all of the above vs all possible opponents.
> >You might note that in the "numbers in service", the Tuvalus
A lot of the Numbats have Raider modules for use in defended areas,
their speed gives them protection. More are used for high-value cargoes.
The remainder are "Chasseurs", designated to pursue commerce raiders, pirates,
and FSE ships. Reading between the lines, you can see that the
OU really wanted to have them have a speed advantage over Thrust-6
ships, and that before the KV came around they were deemed costly failures,
with production pretty much halted.
> Alan, here you're just pulling figures out of thin air - you didn't
Comes from operating without either FB1 or even my OUDF page in front of me.
> The Tuvalu Block II has 40% percent hull (not 50%) and three armour.
That
> gives it 32 hull and 3 armour, for a total of 35 damage points.
Fair enough. For something like twice, read something like 150%. Yes, I know
that in this case its 133%, but in other cases 150% is understated.
> >I've been hit with 2 SMs that did a total of over 40 pts before now,
3.5 * 3.5 where I made an arithmetic mistake. 24.5 it is. In practice, most
SMs will be faced with something like 1 PDS each, so I plan "average damage"
of 10.5 per SM when figuring out how many to allocate to targets. It works.
> > >>Whereas, say, a reasonable mix of Tacomas, Hurons, Furious,
Exactly. I think that I've gotten my point across, however poorly I might have
expressed it. I also think you agree with much of what I say,
just won't let me get away with over-generalising. For which I thank
you, it keeps me on my mettle.
> >The point is, that many typical OU fleets actually do consist of
Once you take out the Freemantles for patrol duties, the Snakes for chasing
down pirates, a Tuvalu or 2 for exploration, Numbats for ferrying round covert
forces, the OU peacetime fleet is pretty stretched. In wartime, maybe 70% of
the Freemantles would become Rivers and get transferred to the main fleet, The
Snakes would be supplemented by Spiders unless there were some Big Targets
around, the Tuvalus would come back home, and Numbats would stop junketing and
get on with independent raids. And all those Scientific Research stations
would get a visit every 6 months instead of weekly.
> There are about as many non-VIP Numbats (15 active, 2 in reserve) as
No there isn't. The OU categorically denies having any covert ops capability.
Oerjan, I know it's a dirty trick to spring on you, but please believe me when
I say that I'm not using a despicable trick to "win" an argument.
Please read between the lines.
Some things you have to deduce. Now there's bound to be many things I haven't
thought through, or have made mistakes in numbers with, or have just gotten
plain wrong. But other things a reader has to infer from what's NOT said. And
some things I want to leave deliberately ambiguous so different players can
have their own fleets, some basically civilian with a thin military venire,
others wolves in sheep's clothing.
> If you include all the Freemantles in the reserve fleet in the "River"
rather
> than "Rivers" kinda suggests that there aren't enough modules to equip
Exactly the kind of thing I was talking about above. It's pretty certain that
the OU doesn't have enough modules for all the Freemantles. But how
many? Even I don't know :-)
> Furthermore, if the "reserve fleet" refers to the OUPF the 33 reserve
The intention was that the 33 reserve Rivers would have civilian modules on,
with a few with military modules to ambush pirates.
> (Curious: If the distinction between Freemantles in reserve and Rivers
"It was found early on in the Lee-Lu Type 459's service that due to the
usual beureaucratic stuff-ups, a virtually unarmed Patrol Vessel would
be sent to do a Destroyer's job, or a Destroyer would be told off to chase a
smuggler that it couldn't catch. In 2168 then, the OU decided that Type 459s
without modules would be known as the Freemantle class, those with modules the
River class. So a single hull could belong to
either at any particular time." -- Unpublished manuscript, Cdr Tam
Nguyen, OUDN(Retd)
> Of course, this *is* an OU page. You can't really rely on the data
Well spotted.
> >Spiders are used when the opponent could have an SDN or Super-Carrier
NAC Carriers & Star Bases too. Remember that the OUDF tactics are
particularly vulnerable to level-2 screened ships, especially ones with
lots of fighters.
> >True. They do have this option. The background though states that the
Fair enough. But try using them in battle, and you'll see what I mean.
> >the Spiders hunt in packs
a) If the OUDF had more of em, maybe it could afford to squander them on other
targets. As it is, there's barely enough. b) No Battle Plan ever survives
contact with the enemy. There have been times when they've been used in an
emergency.
> >and the SMRs are used for additional fire support when operating with
Even I don't know the answer to this one.
> >By the same token, you could say that an NAC fleet uses lots of SMs
Using atypical fleets, yes. Try to find an FB1 force with more SMs than
one consisting of nothing but Waldberg-Ms.
Of course there are what, 10 Waldberg-Ms in the whole NSL
Kriegsraumflotte?
> >But on a 6-B1 module, you'll probably lose 2-4 B1s, and take much
Nope, I can never repair all the B-1s on board anyway.
> The problem with this scenario is that if you take a threshold at 4+,
Or your first, where you've just taken 2 rows of damage in one hit.
> Unless you use Phalon-style Weak hulls, you need
See above.
> IME, for the first two thresholds the B1s give you a considerably
I'll give this some thought, you may be correct. Thanks for the comments, they
were not just good to read, they did wonders for giving
me an appropriate sense of humility :-)
...or "Oh no, here he goes again" <g>
> Alan Brain wrote:
> First, my thanks to OO for his very useful comments. He's put a lot of
...which is why it took me so long to write this reply - I spent the
whole
weekend dancing instead :-)
> Anyway, on with the motley.
Since I have FB1 handy, I'd like to add two more ships to the comparison:
ESU - Volga superdestroyer
FSE - San Miguel destroyer
At TMF 34, they're about as much smaller than the River as the River is
smaller than the three CLs - ie., they and the CLs bracket the River.
> It's not stated in the OUDF page, but the OU uses Rivers in the
OK. Makes it even more appropriate to compare the Rivers against FB1
DDs/DDHs as well as against CLs.
> In every case, either the River is significantly cheaper ( being
In three of your four cases, none of the above options is really true (the
River is significantly cheaper than the CLs, but it isn't as tough - you
can't ignore the effects of screens, extra FCSs and better hull/armour
layout when comparing the toughness of different designs), and in the
fourth case I probably wouldn't say that the River/GP and the Trieste
are
"equal in all other respects" than close-range
firepower <g>
In the two cases I added the River is more expensive and much tougher, and
either [has narrower firing arcs] OR [has more firepower at close range but is
significantly slower].
(In all the above cases the River/GP also has weaker point defences than
the
FB1 ships - not a problem if supported by ships with Defence modules or
if there are no enemy missiles or fighters nearby, of course.)
When I see the term "wide firing arcs", I understand it to mean "how
big a fraction of the direct-fire firepower of the strongest (usually
(F))
arc is available in the other arcs". If you mean something else by the term,
please let me know - in that case we're probably talking about different
things entirely!
Putting the "arcy-ness" of the various ships discussed in this thread
into a table, I get:
% of F-arc short-range
Short-range firepower available in...
Ship Firepower in F arc FP/FS AP/AS (A)
Vandenburg/T "15" 47% 20% (7%)
Vandenburg 8 75% 38% (13%) Markgraf, Voroshilev 12 83% 33% (17%)
Tuvalu BII/GP 11 81% 45% (27%)
Furious "11" 27% 27% (9%)
Beijing/B,
Gorshkov 9 77% 44% (22%) Radetzky,
Numbat/GP 10 80% 40% (20%)
Tibet, Volga, Jerez 8 75% 75% (50%)
River/GP, Huron,
Krprz W 8 75% 50% (25%) San Miguel 6 67% 67% (33%) (and the other FB1 DDs too)
Trieste 3 100% 33% (33%)
(Firepower values in quotation marks include P-torps. The missiles on
the Gorshkov and the Trieste have not been included, since missiles are
restricted by firing arcs in quite different ways than direct-fire
weaponry. The (A) arc values are in parantheses since you normally can't fire
through that arc.)
As you can see above, the River/GP has very standard firing arcs for FB1
ships in the TMF 30-50 range - the only FB1 ship in this Mass range
which
does *not* have similar beam arcs is the Trieste. (The River/Standard
would
have wider firing arcs than normal in that Mass range, out-arced only by
the Volga and Tibet, but according to the web page descriptions that
configuration is quite rare.)
The Tuvalu BII/GP has unusually wide arcs *for a TMF 80 FB1 CH* - but
when
compared to FB1 ships in the TMF 55-70 range, any differences in firing
arcs are pretty much negligible. Unless, of course, you only compare it with
the
*extremely* narrow-arced Furious - but it is the Furious which has
unusual
arcs compared to the other FB1 ships, not the Tuvalu BII/GP.
All of this is just a way to try to explain why I, when I tried the BORONs in
battle a year or so ago, didn't find them to be "unusually
wide-arced"
but instead very much "standard-arced" and therefore wondered a lot
about
your wide-arc claims :-/
> You might note that in the "numbers in service", the Tuvalus
OK. This is a bit difficult to read between the lines though, since neither
the Numbat description, nor the main OU doctrine text, nor the examples
mention any non-combat modules other than the two VIPs for the OU
Numbats -
in distinct contrast to the Rivers and Tuvalu Block Is (which are explicitly
described as being used for civilian tasks and/or raider missions), but
similar to the Tuvalu Block IIs (which are explicitly described as being
dedicated combat vessels).
> Alan, here you're just pulling figures out of thin air - you didn't
OK. Explains quite a few of your statements :-/
> The Tuvalu Block II has 40% percent hull (not 50%)
Side note: The Tuvalu Block II description calls the hull integrity "Very
Strong" (ie., 50%). 32 hull boxes is only 40% of its Mass, ie. "Strong".
> and three armour. That
Certainly. 150% is understated if you compare absolute hull strengths with
those of smaller ships (ie. "River vs Jeanne d'Arc", but with the BORONs
playing Jeanne's part), or if you look at a per-Mass basis and compare
the BORONs with NAC carriers and various small escorts (frigates and smaller,
for which rounding effects become significant).
> I also think you agree with much of what I say, just
I won't let you get away with over-generalising when doing so results in
you
making false statements, no :-/
> Once you take out the Freemantles for patrol duties, the Snakes for
OK. This should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page
> There are about as many non-VIP Numbats (15 active, 2 in reserve) as
...except, of course, for the OUDFS Wanganui and the Raider-equipped
*Rivers* (eg. OUPS Sepik), both of which are featured on the BORON examples
page...
> Oerjan, I know it's a dirty trick to spring on you, but please believe
I believe you. It's just that the OU pages currently don't give a complete
enough picture to let another player use the BORON ships with "doctrinally
correct" fleet mixes.
> Please read between the lines.
Easy to say, hard to do. Particularly when you combine the wrong lines to read
between...
> Some things you have to deduce. Now there's bound to be many things I
In which case players who use them in ways different from yours, with
different force mixes - not to mention *against* different force mixes!
-
will get results which are very different from those you have seen, and
therefore won't agree with your assessment of the BORON designs. Just like I
did...
> "It was found early on in the Lee-Lu Type 459's service that due to
Sounds good :-)
> Spiders are used when the opponent could have an SDN or
Yes... though sending the Spiders to take out an NAC carrier seems to be a
pretty certain way of losing one Spider for every NAC fighter squadron,
though - unless OU fighters neutralize the NAC fighters (in which case
you could pretty much ignore the carrier) or you send in some ships with
Defence modules to escort the Spiders on their attack run.
> True. They do have this option. The background though states that
I have tried very similar ships in battle, but I'm still not sure what you're
referring to here. It could be either of...
- the Spiders get one extra point of *acceleration*, but no better
*turning ability* than the Numbats (unfortunately turn ability, not
acceleration, is
the important thing for aiming single-arc weapons), OR
- the Spiders are far easier to destroy than the Numbats, so in spite of
the
fact that you get more than twice as many P-torps for your points by
buying
Spiders you usually don't get any more close-range torp shots since the
Spiders have already been destroyed or crippled when it is their turn to fire.
Or were you thinking of something else? :-)
> and only go for things like Komarovs which have class-2 screens,
b) is exactly what I was referring to above. In the previous post you wrote
"only go for things like Komarovs which have class-2 screens" - what do
they
do if the enemy was expected to bring ships with level-2 screens (so the
OUDF fielded the Spiders) but turn out not to have any? Do they break off
immediately, or do they fight? I would expect them to fight :-/
> But by my standards, the NAC doesn't use SMs, and the fleet tactics
That's easy. A fleet consisting of nothing but FSE Athena/Ms ;-)
(Marginally more missiles, but all of them launched at the same time instead
of spread
over two turns - and a better thrust rating to help them bug out
afterwards,
since the Athena/Ms don't have any *other* weapons apart from the
missiles...)
> Of course there are what, 10 Waldberg-Ms in the whole NSL
26 Waldburg/Ms in 2183, compared to 59 standard Waldburgs.
> The problem with this scenario is that if you take a threshold at 4+,
True.
> IME, for the first two thresholds the B1s give you a considerably
And also when a ship only has a single FCS, like the River. The FCS tend to
have absolute DCP priority on such ships
Later,
> Oerjan Wrote:
*LOTS OF STUFF*
Wow. My head swims. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm up to FT.....
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Oerjan Wrote:
Don't worry. Alan and I are both FB playtesters, so we tend to go deep into
details every now and then :-/
Later,
> Oerjan Wrote:
The right question is, "are you up to Oerjan?" And the answer is, "no, but no
one else is either," so don't worry about it.
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
It took you this long to figure out? (8-)
JGH
> Alan Brain wrote:
> >Don't worry. Alan and I are both FB playtesters, so we tend to go
No, no, *no*. Jon T. is God, the two of us are merely his prophets... each
leading his own schismatic sect ;-)
Later,
> > >Don't worry. Alan and I are both FB playtesters, so we tend to go
Oerjan:
> No, no, *no*. Jon T. is God, the two of us are merely his
Yeah? How often does the prophet say "If God said that, he's wrong"?
:-)
> Laserlight wrote:
> >>Man proposes, God disposes. OK, so OO *IS* God <g>
each
> >leading his own schismatic sect ;-)
As often as necessary ;-)
Later,
> Laserlight wrote:
For "Prophets", read "Profits", throughout.....
;-)
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Laserlight wrote:
> > > >Don't worry. Alan and I are both FB playtesters, so we tend to go
We've got more intelligent prophets around here than the usual run.
If more prophets said, "If God said that, he's wrong." the world might be
better off...
Hey, that's what the real world needed! Better playtesting before general
release!
Horrifying thought - does this mean the Real World is a GW product?
Agggghhh...
Tongue in cheek,
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:42:30 -0800 (PST) Brian Burger
> <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
Could be reception problems, not transmission. <grin>
> Hey, that's what the real world needed! Better playtesting before
I thought that was dinosaurs? Version 1.000
> Horrifying thought - does this mean the Real World is a GW product?
Oh, Please, not that!
> Tongue in cheek,
Responding with own tounge in own cheek.
Gracias,
> At 12:33 11/11/01 +0100, Oerjan wrote:
each
> leading his own schismatic sect ;-)
So what does that make Mary Gentle? Mary Magdalene?
> Jon T. wrote:
> >>>No, no, *no*. Jon T. is God, the two of us are merely his
Can't see how you're doing a profit out of me, really... <G>
Later,