UNSC

> Matt Tope wrote:

That's a good question, and is still being hashed out both on
this list and on the playtester list. ;-)

I personally like the UNSC models quite a lot, too.

I find my self extremely tempted by the UNSC models, and was wondering if
there was any general consensus on the UN fleets design philosophy. I get the
impression from Indy's site and from some stuff posted by Beth way back (on
the archive) that the UN fleet has some advanced tech. How does this translate
in FT?

Regards,

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:29:06PM +0100, Matt Tope wrote:

You might find http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200302/msg00334.html worth
a look - Oerjan's fine-tuning the CPV concept, but this is a good
starting point for making large ships as costly as they really ought to
be...

And anyway, it's _supposed_ to scare the Kra'Vak! :-)

"Evil Universal Empire" ship! I'd want to see the SSD just as an example of
the third sigma level of ship design!

Although the rush from making that Sol class ship go "nova" would be 10 in the
gaming index!

Glenn says: "6 mm figures are my main interest. I play them in Historical,
Fantasy and Science Fiction; big battles, small battles and skirmishes. But if
you have the figures (5 mm through 54 mm,) the terrain and the rules...
Fight's on!"
Gracias,   Glenn  -  warbeads@juno.com
The last man in the world without a web site?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:29:06 +0100 "Matt Tope" <mptope@omnihybrid.com>
writes:
> On Friday Indy wrote:

> On Friday Indy wrote:

> I personally like the UNSC models quite a lot, too.

The Sol class is stunning. So much so that my plan for the weekend was to come
up with a possible SSD for one. I was thinking along the lines of slow but
tough, with (to reflect the higher tech level) C4's in 3 arcs, pulse torps and
C2's in 6 arcs. Plus good active defences and fighters. The finished product
weighed in at mass 272 and 888pts. At this point I backed off slowly and
erased it from my mind. It was just a tad (set British understatement to
factor 10) OTT, it would have scared even the Kra'Vak!

Regards,

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 02:24:28PM +0100, Matt Tope wrote:

> A "possible/implausible" design for the UNSC Sol Class Extended Range

What's "extended range" about this design? (Not crucial, but it would be nice
to have a spot of cargo space.)

> NPV: 931 (if I got the price of the fighter bays right...)

That matches my calculation.

> 2 screen generators (27mass)

Here I think we may have to argue. If this ship is fighting the Kra'Vak, the
screen generators are dead weight; you'd be a lot better off with 27 more hull
boxes or some more weapons. OTOH, you may be intending this as
a pre- or post-XW1 design, in which case fair enough...

> 4xPusle torp (Fore arc) (16 mass)

Again, K'V: with thrust 2, how often do you expect to get a single-arc
weapon into range?

> Unfortunately one thing led to another and I ended up producing the

Search the archives for "DPR". (Clue: it's short for "DreadPlanet
Roberts". :-)

Cheers,

> Glenn wrote:

> "Evil Universal Empire" ship! I'd want to see the SSD just as an

> Although the rush from making that Sol class ship go "nova" would be 10

Dear Lord, please forgive me for what I am about to do...

A "possible/implausible" design for the UNSC Sol Class Extended Range
Dreadnought

Mass 272 Thrust 2s (27mass) FTL (27 mass) Hull Integrity: 108 2 screen
generators (27mass) 2 Fighter Bays (18 mass) 5 FC (5mass)
2xC4 in 3arcs (both FP/F/FS) (24mass)
4xPusle torp (Fore arc) (16 mass) 4xC2 in 6 arcs (12mass) 2xC1 (2 mass) 6 PDS
(6 mass)

NPV: 931 (if I got the price of the fighter bays right...)

To offer some kind of defence, I was thinking class 4's in order to put down
some long range fire in the hope (human) opposition will get the hint and back
down with a minimum of bloodshed (this is the UN after all). The 4 pulse torps
are mounted in case the opposition don't take the hint. Unfortunately one
thing led to another and I ended up producing the above behemoth. Sorry. I
have a feeling that I will be called before the UNSC war crimes tribunal as a
preemptive measure...

Regards,

> Roger wrote:

> Here I think we may have to argue. If this ship is fighting the

Yep, it's intended as a pre-XW1 design, designed to go up against human
vessels only.

> What's "extended range" about this design? (Not crucial, but it would

Good point. In that case I could convert 27 dps into cargo space.

> Again, K'V: with thrust 2, how often do you expect to get a single-arc

Hopefully only once ;-)...I figure that's more of a problem with
cinematic than vector movement...mmmm could steal a couple of points of mass
from hull
integrity/cargo mass and convert four single arc torps into 3 triple arc
torps...

Fortunately (for its own crew) I doubt this design will tread vacum.

Thanks for the comments Roger, good points well made :-)

Regards,

> 2xC4 in 3arcs (both FP/F/FS) (24mass)

Perhaps I'm just a little slow today -- it's a MONDAY, by thunder!  I
have
good reason! -- but I must confess that I can't identify the weapons
listed above. I'm assuming them to be beam batteries, but what does the "C"
represent?

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0000, John C wrote:

I assumed "Class". I think "B2-3" (for 3-arc class-2 beam) would be a
more conventional usage.

C stands for class, as in C2= class 2 beam.

Sorry for any confusion caused.

Regards, Matt Tope.

[quoted original message omitted]

> Matt Tope wrote:

> C stands for class, as in C2= class 2 beam.

Looks like the confusion is partly my fault, since I was the one who
introduced the "B" notation originally :-/

What you (Matt) describe is the notation we used to use here on the list

until Fleet Book 2 was published. Since FB2 introduced Class 1, 2, 3 etc.
K-guns in addition to the Class 1, 2, 3 etc. beam batteries, I began
denoting beam batteries with B for "Beam" instead, so "B2" means "class 2
Beam battery" (as opposed to eg. a K2, which is a class 2 K-gun); others

followed suit. The number of arcs can be listed after a hyphen, so a
3-arc
class 2 beam battery can be listed as a "B2-3".

***
As to your UNSC SDN design, well... I can't decide which movement system it is
intended for. If it is intended for Cinematic movement, then I wouldn't
expect the P-torps to get used very much unless it comes to a full stop
and just spins in position (which however makes it a quite easy missile
target)
- indeed, if it were fighting me it'd probably only get one P-torp salvo

off, and that one would be at range 24-30. I'd very much prefer to drop
some weapons to give the remaining P-torps wider fire arcs.

If OTOH it is intended for Vector movement, then it doesn't really need 3 arcs
for its B4s. Unless the enemy gets to very close range (12 or less, at which
point your B2s and B1s kick in full force) you're pretty much guaranteed to be
able to rotate your ship to face a target, so I'd replace
the 2x B4-3 with 3x B4-1 instead.

As for it being "over the top", it is smaller than the FSE Jeanne
d'Arc-class carriers from FB1 and less expensive (both in the NPV and
the
CPV systems) than the Phalon Voth- and Draath-class heavies from FB2...

Regards,