Re: Comments on various designs - New Bavarians, Dean's reinforcements, Independent Antarctics

G'day Oerjan,

>Beth's IAS ships, found via the GZGverse Encyclopedia page:

Thanks for taking the time to care ;)

>McMurdo modular freighter: OK. Interesting concept - expensive in
>one-off battles, but it should prove very useful in campaigns :-)

Well the philosophy was that they should be wackling huge for cargo
hauling
and if need be then weapons platforms could be easily shunted in.

>Amundsen explorer: If the ship has Avg hull as specified, then it has 4
>hull boxes and costs 68....

Its called a typo Oerjan. It should read 4 not 3, but it still only
costs
66 as it now only as a thrust of 5 (a few things have changed since that
doc went up, suppose I should really find the time to get things up to
date) ;)

>Borchgrevink STL Boat: Avg hull gives 4 hull boxes, not 3. NPV is
>correct here, though.

I don't type well ;)
 
>Filchner STL Flyer: OK
> 
>Davis STL Shuttle: OK

I'm ever so glad that they met your approval ;)

>Vinsin  Massif (shouldn't it be Vins*o*n?) 

Yeah OK my typing sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>CV: Which generation of ECM is used? 

Straight out of MT:
ECM = mass 2, cost 20

Have I missed something?

>Erebus Arsenalship: Ha... hm. Design is legal (assuming Superior ECM),
>but 2 P-torps *and* beams, and only one single FC?

Its legal, it works, the guys I play with haven't stoned me to death....

>Maud CA(V): Legal design (assuming Superior ECM), but, well... the ADFC
>seems a bit extravagant with only 1 PDS to support it :-/

IAS design philosophy... when facing 110 missiles every PDS helps!

>Wilkes CE: ECM not specified, but the NPV and TMF strongly suggest that
>the ship has Superior ECM but only Enhanced Sensors (not Superior
>Sensors as specified).

Once again we only got one kind of ECM, so that'd be standard ECM and
superior sensors ;)

>Zotikov Patrol Cruiser: Assuming Superior ECM, the cost incl. std
>fighters is 297.

OK step me through this Oerjan, I must have a rounding error somewhere
or
something because I still only get 293 (mind you it is an old
spreadsheet
I'm working off here and I may have fixed the problem on the one at home
and not brought it into the one here)

>Metz DD, Shackleton FF, Byrd SC: OK

Wow he approves of something else!!!!

>Modules:
>How is the module NPV calculated? Most of them seem to be (21 (for
>basic structure) + cost of systems), but not all:

Well that'd be a tad surprising seeing that's exactly what I did for all
of
them!
Now I really am starting to think there's a rounding error problem
somewhere.

>Warfighting -	NPV 101 (rather than 97) assuming Superior ECM
>(otherwise there's 1 Mass unused)

Ahhh, our problem wouldn't be steaming from the fact your using some new
fangled ECM design set-up would it? If you didn't answer already above
what
are the specs you use for standard, superior etc ECM?

>Missile -  NPV 84 (rather than 114), or have you upped the cost of MT
>missiles?

No we haven't changed that, I must have been off with the fairies,
thanks ;)

Cheers

Beth

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
HOBART 
TASMANIA 7001
AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax (03) 6232 5199 International +61 3 6232 5199

email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au