About Neal Kaplan's TBA ship designs:
A few trouble spots:
* The cost of the Broadsword-class BBM is 450 (not 440); its SML refit
either needs to remove one more Mass somewhere, or it is 131 Mass, cost
454 (not 130/453).
* The Basilisk-class DDH as shown on the web page is Mass 40, cost 131.
With an extra FC (more on this later) it becomes Mass 41, cost 136.
* The Hermes-class FF costs 60, not 61.
There are a couple of things the various TBA design bureaus should take note
of for future designs and refits:
* Thrust-4, Average-hulled FTL-capable ships with a mass ending in "5"
(45, 55, etc) are inherently inefficient. Dropping the hull size by 1 Mass
will reduce the hull integrity by 1 box, but it'll give the ship
an extra Mass to use for systems - preferrably armour to
(over-)compensate for the lost hull box. This means that the Typhon,
Revenge, Aegis and Hawk classes could all reduce their Mass by 1, swap 1 hull
box for 1 (slightly more efficient) armour box and reduce their respective
costs by 3 points. [This is of course due to artificial breakpoints in the FB1
construction rules, but the effect is there.]
* Pulse Torpedoes and Needle Beams require FCs separate from those used by
standard beam batteries (FT2 p.18). This means that the Hawk, Gorgon and
Basilisk classes are unable to fire all of their weapons in a single turn;
similarly the Manticore, Black Widow and Hyperion classes are rather likely to
suffer fire control shortages. The Hyperion in particular, since its PTs cover
different arcs and thus may well want
to engage different targets - but doing so would stop its heavy beam
battery from firing. The non-PT armament of the Typhon class is too
light to make this problem serious, but it too is unable to split its
PT fire between two targets if it wants to use its Class-2 as well.
Finally, two comments:
* Is the Hyperion-class really a "cruiser"? I'd call it a BC instead,
especially since the Constellation-class BCs are smaller than the
Hyperions. Yes, I *know* that the B5 Omegas are called "Destroyers",
but... well, that's B5 :-/
* It is IMO rather unlikely that a Scimitar-class CG will be around
long enough to launch all of its missiles. 4 turns is a very long time to
survive in range of the enemy, particularly with a fragile
2-component weapon :-/
Regards,
A note on Oerjan Ohlson's comments on Neal Kaplan's TBA ship designs. In FB
rules I do not think that pluse torps require a seperate firecon. Last
November I sent Jon Tuffley the following email.
"I have a question about pulse torps and fire controls. In FT a separate fire
control is needed to fire each pulse torp. Is this still the case if using FB
rules? If it is the case some of the NAC ships seem very strange to
me. The P-torp versions of the Tacoma frigate and Vandenburg heavy
cruiser
would be unable to fire both their beams and their P-Torps. The Furious
escort cruiser, Victoria battleship and Vally Forge superdreadnought all have
just enough fire controls to fire their beams and pulse torps, but if they
lost a fire control and retained their pulse torps during a threshold check
they would have a problem. Based on the designs of the frigate and heavy
cruiser the only ruling that seams to make sense is that one fire control can
direct the fire of both beams and p-torps as long as they are all firing
at the same target. Would you please tell me if this is correct?"
Jon's reply was as follows.
" This is actually the first time this question has come up! Yes, I think for
the FB rules we should drop the firecon limitation for PTs and treat them
just as any other weapon system - we'll make a note of this for the next
book!"
Something to think about.
> ODUPSHAW3@cs.com (a bit difficult to pronounce, no? <g>) wrote:
> A note on Oerjan Ohlson's comments on Neal Kaplan's TBA ship designs.
In FB
> rules I do not think that pluse torps require a seperate firecon.
Last
> November I sent Jon Tuffley the following email.
Not exactly. FT2 p. 18 says "engaging *a* target with torpedoe*s* requires the
use of *one* Fire Control system, which may NOT also be used to direct Beam
Batteries that turn, even at the same target.". (my emphasises) IOW, a
separate FC is needed for each target fired upon with PTs, not one FC per PT
(ie, if you fire 2 PTs and some beams at a single target you need 2 FCs: one
for the 2 PTs, one for the beams). I
believe the FT FAQ covers this, though I don't have the URL handy :-(
> Is this still the case if using FB rules?
Yes - well, the above version of it is. FB1 would have had to
explicitly cancel the FC requriement, but we forgot about it at the time. You
can always make a house rule about it, of course!
> If it is the case some of the NAC ships seem very strange to
The Tacoma-T would be; that's probably one of the big reasons it is
still undergoing fleet evaluation :-7 The Vandenburg-T doesn't have
this problem, as long as it fires both torps at the same target and hasn't
lost any FCs.to treshold checks. The Furious, Victoria and Valley Forge have
enough FCs to use all their weapons, though the Furious is rather sensitive to
FC damage.
> Jon's reply was as follows.
It certainly makes sense to drop it. The P-torp FC requirements aren't
a game balance issue IMO, merely an annoyance :-/
Best wishes,