Re: [OFFICIAL] National Characteristics?

Ground Zero Games wrote:

...Snip...(JTL)
> 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.

...Snip...(JTL)
> 
> Jon (GZG)

XXXX This message concerns FT 2.5/3.0 XXXX
Jon T.
     The current FT background (as I see it) Is an extension of the
modern era (Cold War) and the continuation of the WWII fleet design
principals.
This makes me wonder how the NSL ends up with big slow ships.  
A very reasonable argument can be made that the construction of
Scharnhorst and Gneisneau triggered the WWII fast battleship 
construction programs for the French, British, and Americans.
     The Schornhorst and Gneisenau are not really understood by 
most gamers, being considered as 'battlecruisers' when in fact
they are fast battleships mounting 11" guns.   The 11" guns are
also not really understood as they are rated as 'B' batteries in
the 'Wet Thrust' rules,  when they should be rated as 'A' batteries
due to the range and velosity of the projectiles.

     Sorry, starting to wander.
Basically the NSL would inherit this tradition of fast, well protected
battleships/cruisers mounting weapons of exceptional range and accuracy.
     The alliance with the NAC would bring in Superior sensors,
more than likely limited to larger ships, or squadron leaders.
While the size of the NSL fleet may be a problem, the quality of 
the ships and crews would not.

Oops, this is starting to sound like a lecture, not really intended
that way.

Bye for now,
John L.