Re: [GZG] Battlecruisers

[Ryan Gill <rmgill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:50 PM +0300 12/24/06, John Atkinson wrote:
> 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.

I enlarged the NAC Vandenberg (I mistakenly 
called it a Ticonderoga in a previous e-mail, 
It's been a while since I even looked at my FT 
figures). Checking the SSD again it's:
108 TMF, 388 NPV, x2 Class 1s, x2 class 3s with 
Overlapping front 180 and one arc to either 
side's aft beam. Two PDS, 1 Shield, two Fire Cons 
(redundancy), 5 armor and 32 hull. Oh thrust 6. I 
call it the Black Prince class. So far, as long 
as I don't get in the thick of things, it works 
well as the leader for a squadron of Vandenbergs 
and Heavy Destroyers. I have a few Heavy DD's 
which are almost CLs but I don't call them CL's 
because they don't have screens (Screens being 
the demarcation for me as to DD vs CA status, not 
tonnage). Class 3 beams AND Screens being the 
demark for Battle-* or larger.

I also made a variant of the old ship list NAC BC 
that has more thrust. A BC that moves thrust 4 
doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps best to 
think of as a 2nd class BB and redesignate as a 
BC once you fit new engines? I can't even think 
of the ship in question's name because my books 
are all packed away.


> 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.

I suspect with the modular nature of current ship 
construction and future space ship construction, 
BC's would be more possible because you could 
leave off an armor layer or two and other 
protection in lieu of more engine mass to get 
that speed. Less armor also means more speed for 
the same structural hull size. The extra turn of 
speed and the need in the FT world for patrolling 
systems, quick transits to get out to other 
systems and for acting as fire brigades for 
problems would give them some advantages over 
slower thrust 4 BBs and DNs.


--
--
Ryan Gill              rmgill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------
           I speak not for CNN, nor they for me.
      But I do work there and still like the company.
----------------------------------------------------------
     |        |                   |         -==----      
     | O--=-  |                   |        /_8[*]°_\     
     |_/|o|_\_|       | _________ |        /_[===]_\     
     / 00DA61 \       |/---------\|     __/         \--- 
  _w/|=_[__]_= \w_    // [_]  o[]\\   _oO_\         /_O|_
 |: O(4) ==    O :|  _Oo\=======/_O_  |____\       /____|
 |---\________/---|  [__O_______W__]   |x||_\     /_||x| 
  |s|\        /|s|   |s|/BSV 575\|s|   |x|-\|     |/-|x| 
  |s|=\______/=|s|   |s|=|_____|=|s|   |x|--|_____|--|x| 
  |s|          |s|   |s|         |s|   |x|           |x| 
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/2)
----------------------------------------------------------

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