Re: Fw: Carriers and other updates

Schoon said:
>>>CVA.html
>Mass factor seems to be off by a factor of 10.

>>>CVL.html
>Same comment.
>
>These appear to be a more "wet navy" oriented carrier design, based
upon
>the primary armament being the fighters. Though from sheer mass, the
larger
>ones could probably take some punishment, they would appear not to be
>designed for the battle line.
>
>I've actually been tempted to see if a design like this would stand up,
>points wise, against a comperable force. Has anyone tried this?

I haven't tried it, but I would think it's logical for a Line of Battle
ship
not to devote space to fighters which could be devoted to weapons or
defenses.  Fighters are weapons, yes, but they have the advantage of
being
long range weapons.  If you build a Frail or Weak carrier and keep it
100 MU
away from enemy cruisers while your fighter wings, then you don't need
the
extra hull and armor--instead you need another hanger.
My philosophy is that you ought to have an optimum range and a way to
keep
the fight happening at that range.  If you build a ship that's a mix of,
say, Beam 3's and Torps, you're either going to be wasting your beam's
range
advantage or you're going to be parked at 30" hoping your torps
occasionally
hit.  Suboptimal solution.  Obviously a carrier with Thrust 6 or so, a
paper
hull, and a horde of fighters, is not going to waste time wondering
about
what range to maintain.