Re: [GZG] Battlecruisers

On 12/24/06, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Well, I've designed one NAC 'Renown' battlecruiser, basically
> a Vandenberg/T with bigger engines (thrust-6) and an extra
> beam-3 replacing the screen. In battle it's performed quite
> like the historical battlecruisers: able to zip about quickly,
> delivers a lot of firepower onto whatever it catches, but with
> only a cruiser hull doesn't last long in a firefight with an
> enemy battleship.

I put together a design which I designated a Battlecruiser.  Took a
standard BB design, remove the armor and shields, and replace with
engine mass.  Took it up to a thrust 6 or so.

The ship which most FT fleets refer to as a Battle Cruiser I
designated a Protected Cruiser, though Light Battleship would be more
accurate.  The intent of these ships is for assignment to stations not
rating a real capital ship squadron.  A couple of these ships, with a
squadron flagship of a regular battleship constitutes a "light battle
squadron" which is intended to protect frontier sectors but not stand
and fight against serious opposition.  That's the purpose of heavy
battle squadrons composed of dreadnoughts and heavy dreadnoughts.

In the ideal world, there would be no need for these vessels, as they
serve no tactical function that cannot be served better by
dreadnoughts.  But I'm assuming that there is a significant percieved
benefit from having smaller, cheaper, somewhat more quickly built
hulls which can be risked more than the dreadnoughts and which can be
stationed in frontier sectors for extended periods of time while the
dreadnoughts are kept in a centrally-located hub as a strategic
reserve.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l