Re: [GZG] Battlecruisers

[Hugh Fisher <laranzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 9:40 AM -0700 23/12/06, Richard Bell wrote:
> For an FT ship to be the equivalent of a true BC, it would need to
> combine a thrust of eight with enough class-4 beams to threaten a CA
> at the 24+ rangeband (preferably 36-48), and receive damage with at
> least as much grace as the cruisers it hunts down (in case it gets
> caught up close and personal).  Even a minimalist BC with 24 hull
> boxes, 4 class-4's, 2 firecons and 2 PDS requires a mass of 120.  As
> we might want to add screens, more PDS, and some secondary weapons,
> the ship really starts to grow.

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.

The rationale for the design (note that I don't claim it to be
a complete success!) is the NAC running into the Kra'Vak.
The big Kra'Vak cruisers and battleships run rings around the
NAC and their single arc pulse torps. Bolting on new engines
to increase the speed and turning ability seems to me a likely
stopgap measure.

The design I haven't playtested yet is the 'Lion' : take a
standard Victoria battleship hull and give it Ark Royal engines.
Mass goes up to 141 and thrust-6, everything else the same.

> Although, what he really got right was that any ship labelled
> "battlecruiser" gets its coolness factor upped several notches, so
> long as it is fast and has big guns.

Very true :-)

	cheers,
	Hugh
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l