Re: FB designs & fighters (& strawmen)

From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>

> > > In stating my general principle of what's wrong with FB1 ships, I
made
> no
> > > allusions to exactly how you should disperse the mass you devote
to
> things
> > > other than weapons -- I only stated that the total percentage
shouldn't
> be
> > > as high as 67-75%, as is the case with every FB1 capital ship.
>
> > You did eventually say this, though not as plainly as just now. I
have
> > no problem with this opinion, even if I don't agree with it. In your
> > percentage, you give drives short shrift for their combat benefits.
They
> > are not offensive systems, but they significantly effect combat
> > capabilities. Others will opine that Hull/Armor/Screens are less a
> > detractor than you hold.
>
> Hull, armor, and screens are useful to a point.

See what you think of the designs at
 http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~aebrain/ft/oudf.htm
where weapons are even less than the FB1 designs.

I've had a lot of success with them. The phrase "DIE, DAMN YOU, DIE!!"
is often heard, when major fleet unit after major fleet unit fires at
a mere heavy cruiser, only to see it still existing. It can be very
frustrating to unload an SDN at 25" at a CL and not even do a threshold.

Of course at over 24", these ships don't get to fire much. But closer,