[FT] NAC Fleet Roster (unofficial, of course)
From: "Stop the car?? This is a car chase! I went through considerable trouble to set this up." <KOCHTE@s...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:31:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [FT] NAC Fleet Roster (unofficial, of course)
Greetings,
Here is something I've been working on, on and off, for the better part
of
half a year now, and has grown by a factor of 2.5 in the past week. It
is
strongly *patterned* after the US Navy Fleet Roster, a book on which I
got
from my brother who works at the Annapolis Naval Academy. The main
thrust
of this list was to make it easier for pick-up games (someone sets a
point-
ceiling, I would then try and find a force from the list here which
would
best fit), and makes for making pseudo-historical scenarios a lot
easier.
In my last two real-life engagements (against Iceberg last friday - see
also the AAR I posted which has generated a LOT of 'stealth' traffic! -
and
against Aaron Teske last saturday - AAR yet to be written up; next
week?),
I used forces from the accompanying roster. Against Noam's NI stealth
ships
I used Cruiser-Destroyer Group 24, and against Aaron's GW Imperial
Gothic
Squadron I used Destroyer Squadron 13. You already know the fate of C-DD
Group 24; you will have to await the AAR to see how DD Sqd 13 faired.
:-)
Anyway, a couple of people have suggested that I either post this to the
list
or put it up on my webpage. As you are reading this, I've obviously
posted it
to the list. :) I will also put it on my webpage later this week or
next.
Understand this *is* an unofficial roster! And that I did take some
liberties with the naming conventions for the Carrier Battlegroups and
Heavy Battlegroups. Hell, I like naming ships. :)
Note: if you were to count up the number of ships massing less than the
Battledreadnoughts (for example, the FB says there are only 56 HURON
CLs,
but I have below 100) you will very likely find discrepencies between
the
numbers I have here, and the numbers listed in the Fleetbook. This is
because Jon has said that the FB is just a sampling of what each nation
has, and I, in order to do points, abstract in that a destroyer - unless
otherwise noted - is going to be 100 pts (NAC), a heavy cruiser 261 pts
(NAC), etc, be it whatever variant or variety the NAC may really have.
Points can easily be adjusted by differencing the FB points with
whatever
you have designed in place of a given ship. I have also presented some
non-FB ships herein, and their difference details - including point
differences - are included at the bottom (along with a little historical
blurb about each one). If you don't like the fact the numbers I have
below
don't agree with the FB numbers, redesign some other ships to fill out
the
numbers, OR drop enough of the groups/squadrons/ships to make 'em fit!
:)
I don't know if I'll get any time to do this for the ESU, NSL, or FSE in
the
near future. I'd love to be able to, but it's a lotta time. If no one
else
works on them, I'll start the next project by tackling the ESU Fleet
Roster.
Mk/Indy
************************************************************************
**
(note: highly unofficial, of course! :)
NAC Fleet Rsoter
----------------
** Destroyer Squadrons **
Designation Comprised of ~NPV
----------- ------------ ----
Destroyer Squadron 1 3xCL, 4xDD, 4xFG 1225
Destroyer Squadron 2 1xCE, 2xCL, 3xDD, 2xFG, 4xCT 1179
Destroyer Squadron 3 2xDD, 2xCT 282
Destroyer Squadron 4 5xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG, 2xCT 1479
Destroyer Squadron 5 1xCE, 1xDD, 4xFG 643
Destroyer Squadron 6 8xDD, 4xFG 1124
Destroyer Squadron 7 1xCE, 4xDD 619
Destroyer Squadron 8 2xCL, 10xDD, 4xFG 1658
Destroyer Squadron 9 1xCL, 5xDD, 3xFG 910
Destroyer Squadron 10 6xDDH 786
Destroyer Squadron 11 1xCE, 1xCL, 3xDD, 4xFG 1010
Destroyer Squadron 12 1xCL, 2xDD 367
Destroyer Squadron 13 1xCL, 4xDDH, 2xDD, 1xFG 972
Destroyer Squadron 14 2xCL, 1xCLE, 2xCVE, 4xFG 1033 + ftrs
Destroyer Squadron 15 3xCL, 4xDD, 2xCT 983
Destroyer Squadron 16 1xCE, 2xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG 1115
Destroyer Squadron 17 3xDD, 3xFG, 2xCT 625
Destroyer Squadron 18 1xCL, 4xDDH, 2xCVE, 1xCT 974 + ftrs
Destroyer Squadron 19 6xDDH 786
Destroyer Squadron 20 1xCE, 1xCE+, 6xCL, 4xCT 1606
Destroyer Squadron 21 2xCL, 2xDD, 2xCT 616
Destroyer Squadron 22 1xCE+, 2xCL, 4xDD, 4xFG 1279
Destroyer Squadron 23 3xCL, 1xDD, 6xFG 1987
Destroyer Squadron 24 1xCLE, 2xDD, 2xFG, 4xCT 695
Destroyer Squadron 25 1xCE, 1xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG, 6xCT 1194
Destroyer Squadron 26 1xCl, 4xDD 567
Destroyer Squadron 27 2xCE, 2xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG 1334
Destroyer Squadron 31 1xCl, 6xDD, 10xCT 1177
Destroyer Squadron 33 4xCE, 4xCL, 2xDD, 2xFG 1906
Destroyer Squadron 34 1xCE, 1xCL, 2xDD 586
Destroyer Squadron 35 1xCE+, 1xCL, 4xDD 788
Destroyer Squadron 36 1xCL, 5xDD 667
Destroyer Squadron 37 1xCL, 1xCLE, 2xDD, 3xCVE, 2xFG 1007 + ftrs
Destroyer Squadron 38 2xCE, 2xCE+, 4xCL, 3xDD, 2xFG 2010
Destroyer Squadron 41 1xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG 729
Destroyer Squadron 43 1xCL, 2xDD 367
Destroyer Squadron 44 3xDD, 3xCVE 609 + ftrs
** Cruiser-Destroyer Squadrons **
Designation Comprised of ~NPV
----------- ------------ ----
Cruiser-DD Group 1 3xCA, 1xCE, 1xCL, 4xFG 1493
Cruiser-DD Group 2 2xCA, 2xDD 722
Cruiser-DD Group 3 4xCA, 2xCE 1482
Cruiser-DD Group 4 1xCA, 1xCE+, 1xCL, 8xDD 1449
Cruiser-DD Group 5 3xCA, 1xCE+, 1xCL 1171
Cruiser-DD Group 6 1xBCN, 3xCA, 1xCM, 2xCE, 2xCL, 2530
4xDD
Cruiser-DD Group 7 2xCA, 1xCM, 1xCE, 3xCL, 3xDD 1759
Cruiser-DD Group 8 2xBC, 1xCE, 6xDD 1535
Cruiser-DD Group 9 1xCA, 1xCE+, 4xCL, 2xDD 1350
Cruiser-DD Group 10 1xCA, 1xCM, 1xCE, 4xDD, 2xFG 1259
Cruiser-DD Group 11 1xBCE, 2xCA, 2xCL, 4xDD 1616
Cruiser-DD Group 12 2xBCN-B, 1xCE, 1xCE+, 2xCL, 1890
4xDD
Cruiser-DD Group 13 3xBC, 10xDD, 6xFG 2560
Cruiser-DD Group 14 3xCA, 3xDD, 2xFG 1245
Cruiser-DD Group 15 3xCA, 4xFG 1107
Cruiser-DD Group 16 2xBCN, 1xCE, 2xCL, 2xDD 1469
Cruiser-DD Group 17 2xCA, 1xCE, 1xCL, 4xFG 1232
Cruiser-DD Group 18 2xCA, 1xCE+, 1xCL, 2xDD, 2xCVE 1316 + ftrs
Cruiser-DD Group 19 1xBCN, 1xCA, 1xCE, 3xDD, 3xFG 1381
Cruiser-DD Group 20 2xBCN-B, 2xCA, 2xCE, 2xCL, 2700
4xDDH, 2xDD, 4xFG
Cruiser-DD Group 21 1xBCN-B, 1xCA, 2xCE, 4xDDH 1581
Cruiser-DD Group 22 2xCA, 2xCM, 1xCE+, 3xDD, 2xFG 1639
Cruiser-DD Group 23 1xBCN, 2xCM, 2xCE, 3xDD, 2xCVE 1736 + ftrs
Cruiser-DD Group 24 1xBCN, 1xCA, 1xCM, 1xCE, 1598
3xDD, 3xFG
Cruiser-DD Group 25 1xCA, 1xCE, 1xCE+, 3xDD 1001
** Carrier Battlegroups **
Designation Comprised of ~NPV
----------- ------------ ----
Ark Royal Battlegroup 1xCV, 2xBCN, 2xCA, 2xCE+, 3194 + ftrs
5xDD, 4xFG
Independence Battlegroup 1xCV, 2xCVL, 1xBDN, 2xBC, 5510 + ftrs
4xCA, 2xCE, 1xCE+, 3xCL, 3xDD, 2xFG
Connestoga Battlegroup 1xCV, 4xCA, 1xCE, 3xCL, 4xDD, 3220 + ftrs
4xFG, 2xScout
Hornet/Yorktown 2xCV, 2xCVL, 6xCA, 2xBCE, 5870 + ftrs
Battlegroup 2xCE+, 2xCL, 3xDD, 2xFG
Intrepid Battlegroup 1xCV, 1xBCN, 1xBC, 3xCA, 2xCE, 3685 + ftrs
2xCL, 4xDD, 4xFG
Agamemnon Battlegroup 1xCV, 1xBDN, 2xCA, 3xCE+, 2795 + ftrs
1xCL, 2xDD, 1xFG
Saratoga II/Matterhorn 1xCV, 1xSDN, 1xBCN, 2xCA, 3675 + ftrs
Battlegroup 2xCE, 3xCL, 2xDD, 4xFG, 2xScout
Enterprise Battlegroup 1xCV, 1xCVL, 1xBDN, 1xBB, 4983 + ftrs
1xBCE, 4xCA, 4xCE, 1xCL, 2xDD, 3xFG, 2xScout
Nimitz Battlegroup 1xCV, 1xCVl, 4xCA, 2xCE+, 3325 + ftrs
3xDD, 4xFG, 2xScout
Lexington Battlegroup 1xCV, 1xBDN, 5xCA, 3xCE, 4xDD, 3890 + ftrs
4xFG, 2xScout
Forrestal Battlegroup 1xCV, 2xCVL, 1xBDN, 2xBCN-B, 4898 + ftrs
3xCA, 2xCE, 1xCL, 3xDD, 4xFG, 2xScout
Invincible/Vinson Massif 1xCV, 2xCVL, 1xSDN, 1xBCE, 5260 + ftrs
Battlegroup 1xBC, 3xCA, 2xCE+, 2xCL, 4xDD, 3xFG, 2xScout
Prometheus Battlegroup 1xCV, 2xBDN, 2xBCE, 3xBCN-B, 5607 + ftrs
3xCA, 1xCE+, 2xCL, 4xDD, 4xCVE, 4xFG,
3xScout
** Heavy Battle Squadrons **
Designation Comprised of ~NPV
----------- ------------ ----
Valley Forge Group 1xSDN, 4xBB, 2xCE 2704 + ftrs
Normandy/Vistula 2xSDN, 1xBDN, 2xBB, 4xCA, 4488 + ftrs
Group 4xCE
Shiloh Group 1xSDN, 2xBB, 2xCLE, 4xCL 2291 + ftrs
Eiger/Denali Group 2xSDN, 2xBDN, 2xBB, 2xBC, 4413 + ftrs
3xCE
Richmond Group 1xSDN, 3xBDN, 2xBB, 1xBCE 3230 + ftrs
Antietam Group 1xSDN, 3xBB, 3xBC, 1xBCN, 4168 + ftrs
4xCE
Agincourt Group 1xSDN, 3xBDN, 4xBB, 2xCA 4204 + ftrs
Annapurna Group 1xSDN, 2xBCN-B, 3xBB 2894 + ftrs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
NAC Notes:
----------
o assuming Heavy Frigate for FGs; otherwise -20 pts per standard frigate
o BCE: drop SMLs and 1xFireCon, 1 aft arc off each Class-3, add 2xADFC,
1xClass-2 (3-arc), 5xPDS, 1xArmour; +2 pts - AEGIS CLASS
o BCN: drop SMLs, add Needle Beam, 3-arc P-torp, 1xPDS; 0 pts -
MONTANA CLASS
o BCN-B: drop Needle Beam, add 1xClass-2 (3-arc); 0 pts
o CM: drop ADFC, add 2 arcs to Class-3; -2 pts - SENECA CLASS
o DDH: Mass 40, Ave Hull, Thrust-6, 4xClass-2 (FP/F/FS), FireCon, 1xPDS,
FTL;
131 pts - TUFFLEY CLASS
o CVE: Mass 30, Weak Hull, Thrust-6, 1x Hangar Bay, 2x PDS, 1x Armour;
103
pts - ZEPHYR CLASS (yes, based on Weber's "Insurrection" tin-can
CVEs)
o CLE: drop off-center Class-2 batts, add 1x ADFC & 2x PDS; +2 pts -
SERRA
ANGEL CLASS
o CE+: an improved CE - drop p-torp, add 1xADFC, 2xPDS; +2 pts -
FURIOUS II
CLASS
NAC Notes II:
-------------
o Purpose of this roster is to allow for quick pick-up games, using a
given
force with a given point value.
o It is *assumed*, unless otherwise noted, that the ships assigned to a
given
Group or Squadron are essentially FleetBook ships or a variant thereof
(any
variants may need to have their point values checked). This is just
for ease
of play so others can use this roster if they so desire.
o CLs and CEs were included in Destroyer Squadrons as CLs are seen as
Large
Destroyers (or Destroyer Leaders, or 'capital ship' destroyers), and
the
CEs were included to offer some anti-missile/anti-fighter protection
for
some squadrons. As not all squadrons would necessarily be sent to
areas
prone to fighter/missile attacks, not all squadrons have been assigned
a
CE (or grouping of CEs).
o BCs were given to Cruiers-Destroyer groups as BCs are seen as Command
Cruisers or 'capital ship' cruisers ('cruiser leaders'?).
o Just because a given Group or Squadron is assigned as it is, this does
not
preclude the commander of the force from having the option of
subdividing
his forces as the situation requires (thus Destroyer Squardon 41,
which
consists of 1xCL, 4xDD, 2xFG, is sent to a system to investigate
commerce
raider activity in the region; commander of the force could opt to
divide
the group up in any way that is best seen fit, so a given scenario may
only
include 2xDD and 2xFG vs a raider force; this would still be Destroyer
Squadron 41, but a subgroup of the squadron).
Ship Design Notes:
------------------
BCE - After a few devastating skirmishes with the FSE, it was realized
that the
FURIOUS CE didn't always offer sufficient protection (and in fact as
would be
later learned, wasn't anywhere near as good an anti-fighter/missile
platform as
the NAC had hoped; too many other roles it was trying to fill), so for
added
fleet protection a number of MAJESTIC hulls were re-designed to be
PDS-heavy
vessels. The basic hull structure remained the same, just the internal
configuration and capabilities changed. This design proved to be highly
effective for anti-fighter and anti-missile operations - and it still
retained
a significant punch for ship-to-ship combat. While it could survive
longer than
a VANDENBURG CA against Ships-of-the-Line, it really was not intended to
go
head-to-head with dreadnoughts.
BCN - in order to provide for independent operations that were below the
purview of BBs, yet would put a CA in over its head, the NAC came up
with a
non-ammo using BC design, created to longer-duration missions. The
initial
design, shown here, mounted a Needle Beam for disabling shots. It would
be
learned through experience that this weapon was little-used in combat,
and
many crews grew lax about its upkeep during standard maintenance
periods.
BCN-B - a variant to the BCN, which swaps out the Needle Beam for a
3-arc
Class-2 battery, giving it just that much more 'punch' power. Crews of
the
BCN-Bs were a much happier lot in combat than those of the BCNs.
CLE - in an effort to save some costs, the NAC commissioned a series of
light
cruiser escorts to supplement the FURIOUS CEs in the fleet. They ended
up
proving to be slightly more capable than the FURIOUS CEs, but they also
did not
have the armor levels of their cousins (ie, no armor!) Thus while they
proved
to be more effective in the anti-fighter/missile role, they also proved
to be a
little more fragile in ship-to-ship action. Retaining the level-1 screen
does
help against beam attacks, though, and it is hoped that the high-thrust
level
of the CLE will also insure its survivability.
CE+ - after studying the ESU's highly effective 'defense close-support'
variant
of the BEIJING/B CEs, the NAC decided to pull some of the currently
under
construction FURIOUS CEs and redesign them for a more specialized
anti-fighter/missile role. Thus was born the FURIOUS II, which could now
either
offer anti-fighter/missile protection to two seperate ships, or
concentrated
withering protective fire for one ship. By losing the pulse torpedo, it
lacked
the extra punch the original FURIOUS class had, but this was not a large
detriment as the restricted arc of the pulse torpedo (and the Class-3
battery)
did not always allow it to come into play in ship-to-ship combat
actions. As it
is, the Class-3 battery doesn't always come into play, either. Some
BuShip
Designers have suggested replacing the Class-3 battery with either 4
more PDS
arrays, or a couple of offset Class-2 batteries, or a combination of
both. So
far only two FURIOUS IIs currently under construction have been slated
to drop
their Class-3 batteries in lieu of another suite of PDS'. They will be
assigned
to the ENTERPRISE Carrier Battlegroup (replacing the current 4 CEs in
the
roster) in order to judge their effectiveness in combat trials. Most CE+
ships
were assigned to Carrier Battlegroups, with a number of others being
scattered
in the Cruiser-Destroyer Groups and some in the Destroyer Squadrons on
an
experimental basis (these DD Squadrons would be sent into areas prone to
high
probability of encountering enemy fighters/missiles). None have been
assigned
directly to Heavy Battle Squadrons. Usually an HBS will gain CE+
protection
from an accompanying Cruiser-Destroyer Group.
CM - with the FURIOUS CE being an all-around ship that did not quite
make it
for what it was designed for, BuShips came up with a specific
ship-combat
cruiser using the CE hull. This cruiser dropped all pretense at being an
escort
cruiser by losing the ADFC, and to expand it's combat capabilities, the
Class-3
battery arc was expanded to become a 3-arc battery. While not as fast at
the
VANDENBURG CAs, this new design has proven itself capable in combat
situations.
DDH - A specialized heavy/attack destroyer, the TUFFLEYs were designed
to
operate in packs, much like wolves Their tactics evolved to the point
where
they acted like extra-huge fighter squadrons. They generally require
support
ships, though, in most situations. They do not function well in
independent
operations. Against fighters and missiles they have limited defenses.
CVE - Looking for a cheap way to deliver fighters to a theater of
operations
without dedicating one of the specialized carriers or dreadnought ships,
the
NAC came up with these 'tin can' carriers. These are generally assigned
to
Destroyer Squadrons or Cruiser-Destroyer Groups where having a
dreadnought or
one of the specialized carriers would be overkill, but yet where some
presence
of fighters is desireable. As these ships look identical to the
TICONDEROGA
DDs, it generally is impossible for an enemy to determine which is which
until
either the ship in question fires weapons or launches fighters. This has
given
more than a few raiders and skirmish instigators a surprise when a
couple of
'lowly' destroyers suddenly disgorge a flight of fighters. Of course
these
ships were not meant to stand up there with the TICONDEROGAs, so an
enemy may
figure out they are CVEs by their hanging back, and take appropriate
action.
Tactical Doctrines
------------------
Heavy Battlegroups are rarely sent out unless Heavy Power is needed for
an
operation, and then when they are, they are often accompanied by at
least one
or two Cruiser-Destroyer Groups, and a few Destroyer Squadrons as
escort. Two
Heavy Battlegroups (the AGINCOURT and ANNAPURNA Groups), when sent to
areas
with high probabilities of encountering fighters or missiles, will have
assigned to them either several anti-fighter/missile escort ships, or
certain
Cruiser-Destroyer Groups which have sufficient anti-fighter/missile
capabilities.
Carrier Battlegroups are generally well-rounded enough to operate in
independent operations, with no definite need for escorting
Cruiser-Destroyer
Groups or Destroyer Squadrons, but often one or two will be assigned if
they
are available (the NAC Naval Command is rather loathe to risk losing
their
prize carriers if it can be prevented).
Cruiser-Destroyer Groups are sent on a wide variety of missions:
diplomatic escort duty, 'show of force/flag', inner system patrol,
others.
They will be assigned to accompany Heavy Battle groups in the event of
major
fleet maneuvers and/or actions.
Destroyer Squadrons are sent on an even wider variety of missions than
the
Cruiser-Destroyer Groups. They are sent to areas where cruisers would be
considered a 'bit much' or overkill, to general patrol duties, general
escort
duties, scouting duties, frontier patrol tours, etc. They are often
assigned
to escort Heavy Battlegroups in major fleet actions.
In all groups/squadrons ships may be sent out on an individual basis,
depending
on the mission (see Notes II, above). No group/squadron is restricted to
stay
together for a given scenario/game. This is just the command the ships
are
assigned to.
[end]