On 12/24/06, Ryan Gill <rmgill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Actually, whether you could really do that is a matter of how much
acceleration is one thrust point, or if the mass set aside to produce
thrust is purely engines or engines plus beefing up the structure to
handle the stress. If each point of thrust is one g, then upping
the acceleration from 4 to 6 is more than just bolting on half again as
many engines. Of course, the rules seem to imply that all hulls
are built to handle thrust 8 (possibly 10), whether they need to or
not, as the rules make no mention of higher thrust hulls costing more
than pokey lower thrust hulls.
Answering another of your posts, once your likely enemy also has BC's,
sending DD's and/or CL's to scout for the enemy's fleet becomes
prohibitively expensive, or impossible if your light units have other
uses, like looking screening your battleline from enemy subs (one of
the reasons that prevented a Jutland rematch was the feeling that the
RN did not have enough DD's for a proper anti-sub screen).
The RN BC's fared poorly at Jutland not so much because they were
tucked into the battleline, but because they were scouting for the High
Seas Fleet and the visibility was bad enough that they were under the
HSF's guns when they actually found them.