[FT, GZG, OU] OU fleet and nation; was Re: [fh ot] Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Sta

At 21:14 05/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Precisely for the reason mentioned here, it is quite likely that the 
>OU and the NAC probably share a lot of cutting edge technologies with 
>each other, and a lot of Military Industrial Complexes probably sell 
>to all sides. It seems likely that most of the major combatants would 
>at most have superiority in a limited area (eg a single technology) 
>and it seems likely that would not last long (the others would steal 
>it, reverse engineer it, or buy it).  If you look at NATO member 
>ships today, they have technologies from many member countries but 
>from many other countries like Japan and the SEATO countries. This 
>isn't likely to be any different in 2183. More prevalent, I'd guess. 
>

	I think that that all depends on how the universe of 2183+
works. A
country that remains neutral and on good terms with most other countries
might be able to buy equipment of all of them and get the best of
everything. This would give the neutral nation an advantage, slim though
it
might be, over all other nations but in different fields against each
one.
Also a small fleet allows you to upgrade at a lower overall cost though
ship deployment becomes a problem. If you did this with a Battlefleet
that
was not on constant deployment the result would be a taskforce that is
in
advance of any similar force an enemy can send against you. Remember
that
in a large fleet like that of the US even ships of the same class are
not
of the same standard. The British have the same problem. Large fleets
mean
heavy costs in maintaince and upgrading. Look at whats happening to the
Russians.

>Would the OU have a few ships? Yes. Like the Canadians would if they 
>were independent. 

	Going on Canada's past preformance (WWII) the NAC fleet probably
IS Canadian.

>modern ships made in Oz or in France, probably not. Everyone has 
>there own tech tricks, but by en large, ships of a class, of an era, 
>and of a cost level, share a parity in general performance envelope, 
>with each ship having strengths and weaknesses. 

	Upto a point. Look at the German fleet at the start of WWII.
Very few
ships when compared to the French of British and as a fleet had no real
hope. On a ship to ship basis or in small task forces the Germans
usually
proved to be much superior.

>
>If you want flavour, has anyone thought of giving each nation some 
>type of enhancements to one area or another to reflect national 
>character?
>
>ie Oz has great PDS (more effective, cheaper, or less massive)
>NAC has great EW/Fire Control/Sensors
>ESU has great Hull Integrity
>etc. 
>
>We've explored these kind of 'differences' for the Kra-Vak, but has 
>anyone thought of trying these for standard Human fleets?

	Well the fleet book has done this to some degree but I do like
what you
are saying. You'd have to be careful though not to change the ship
designs
so you'd have to look at changing preformance. For the PDS (I'm in
desperate need) say for every 2 firing you roll and each PDS die.

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au