Re: Roles of various ship classes

> I am finally getting some actual Full Thrust games
> now, and at the last game a bit of a debate arose
> over the role of certain ship classes.
> 
> Specificly, what kind of ship was appropriately
> armed with Pulse Torpedos.
> 
> I was of the opinion that an effective Pulse Torpedo
> ship has to be survivable, to get off several shots
> and also very maneuverable because of its limited
> arc of fire.
> 
> If you aren't using a very survivable ship you may
> as well use Submunitions, which can deliver all
> their damage in one shot.  Pulse torpedos are better
> than submunitions only if they get off >3 or 4 shots.
> They also have an advantage in a campaign game where
> they don't have to keep getting replaced.

Remember one thing.  When you have your unsurvivable ship with 1 shot 
weapons, it becomes a non-threat when those weapons are gone.  The 
enemy can destroy it at his leasure when the weapons are all shot.  
By putting a pulse torpedo on a small ship, you make the enemy shoot 
at it or pay the consequences.	
   
> So the ideal Pulse Torpedo ship is a fast heavy
> cruiser.  With a more reasonable cost of 4 Mass,
> a heavy cruiser with Level-2 shields, 2 Pulse
> Torpedos and 2 PDAF you've got a ship that can
> get that all important first threshold check on
> a Capital ship.

Fast and heavy cruisers are very cool but are very expensive.  If you 
want to build them and try to out maneuver the enemy, they can be a 
great asset.  Unfortunatly, it really hurts when they get destroyed.
 
> A non-ftl heavy cruiser would be even more formidable
> because it could have 3-shields and 3 torpedos and
> thus be practically immune to beam weapons.  Versus
> a beam equipped Battleship it could take several
> rounds of beam fire while doing severe damage.
> 
> It would be a very odd class of ship.  A middle sized
> ship which specializes in attacking Capital ships.
> The closest analogue I was able to find were the
> heavily armored coastal monitors which carried huge
> guns and stayed so close to shore that battleships
> couldn't close with them.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to have an armament mix on
> a pulse torpedo Cruiser or Escort because it can't
> spare the fire controls.  Pairing off torpedo cruisers
> with cruisers designed to swat escorts is a good idea,
> but mixing pulse torpedos and beams on one cruiser
> isn't.  If it loses a fire control a mixed armament
> ship would have to decide whether to fire beams or
> pulse torpedos.

This I agree with.  Most navies today do this.	In games where Nova 
Cannons/Wave Guns are used, this tactic is less effective because you 
have to scatter to protect yourself from these area effect weapons.
 
> On that line of thought, a ship shouldn't have more
> different arcs of fire than it has fire controls.
> "Well, what if you face an opponent from a direction
> you don't mount weapons?"  Why assume that you
> won't be able to maneuver to get a good firing angle?
> If you build your ship so that you can't ever use
> all your fire power you are being silly.
> 
> A Kra'Vak escort should have all its weapons in one
> arc, a cruiser, 2 arcs, only a Capital ship would have
> all three arcs covered.
> 
> Michael Sandy
> 
John Acar
LLD, Inc.
jacar@ver.lld.com