RE: Maximizing ship designs

>----------
>From:	pepourne@nps.navy.mil[SMTP:pepourne@nps.navy.mil]
>Sent:	Thursday, March 27, 1997 11:45 AM
>To:	Mail List
>Cc:	George,Eugene M
>Subject:	Maximizing ship designs
>
>I think it should be evident to everyone that no one builds a fleet to
fail.
>There is an entire science called naval architecture devoted to finding
the
>best and optimized fleet design of ships. 

 A nation would be foolish not to strive for the best mix of weapons and
weapons platforms to suit it's needs. Those needs are affected by the
economic, political, geographic factors of the countries (planets)
involved. These only come into play generally in large, complex
campaigns.

Some nations may not have an optimization 'choice'. To counter your
statement I will put forth a few examples.

1) A nation too poor to afford 'first run' naval architecture that must
rely on second hand ships or follow the dictates of a larger benefactor
as far as astronaval theory/ practice. Beggars can't be choosers.

2) Mercantile interests who (as in the core FT/MT rules) are held to
specific weapons/ systems for defense, except by certain special license
or permission.

3) Nations who have invested in large amounts of now obsolete or as yet
unproved technologies, who may field large navies, but to lesser effect.

4) Alien races may not be physically able to use, comprehend or
reproduce given designs or technologies. The Sa'vasku, for instance may
not be able to 'grow' a ship strong enough to safely use a Nova Cannon
or Wave Gun, but may be able to produce new 'heavy' armored fighters
with a little effort after seeing the correlation between the thicker
armor and it's effect.

> The problem is that you have multiple missions for ships to accomplish
and
>so balances have to be struck. And again there are different mindsets
to how
>to accomplish them.  So unless you desing a campeign or scenario that
has
>these competing missions, ships Will be optimized.

That's exactly why I advocate a strong scenario based element. At least
explain WHY these mighty instruments of space destruction are hurtling
after each other through the inky void. Fer crying out loud AT LEAST
GIVE YOUR SHIPS NAMES !!!! <ahem, sorry>. It's	a start. It is one of
our groups house rules that all ships be given names, even silly ones
are preferable to numbers or letters (unless that's your naming scheme).

Regardless, FT/ MT/ DII/ SG2 are simulations, albeit fantastic ones,
they still attempt to model thier own internally consistant (well...
usually) universe. This universe, closely resembles our own, so probably
follows almost all of the constants we see around us. So while Naval
Architects, Admirals, and Heads of State jockey around for the most bang
for the buck the swabbies are stuck using it, the workers have to build
it, and the taxpayers have to pay for it. Summing up: Nothing occurs in
a vaccuum, if you want an pre optimized game there's always chess or
checkers (for the true power gamer use the variant multiple jump & 'king
me' rules for the latter). All the forces in those games are as good as
they get. As I grow older, I seem to prefer the 'shades of gray' of more
realistic games. 

>  Legislating your versionof sanity won't change it.

But if everyone can agree on a good version it will become, de facto,
law.

>  Phil P.
>
Some more thoughts,

>Gene