Comments on various designs - New Bavarians, Dean's reinforcements, Independent Antarctics

Next batch of design critiques:

New Bavarians:
 
Hemlock-class FF: 1 TMF & 3 pts unused (cloak?). The ship could be TMF
17, NPV 58 if WYS on the system data sheet IWYG, or TMF 18, NPV 61 if
you want 4 hull boxes.

Booth-class DDH: A typical example of New Bavarian desinformation. With
the systems and specs given on the data sheet this ship is TMF 54, NPV
177 rather than TMF 40, NPV 131 (replacing the C3-1 batteries with
C2-3s gives the correct values), and it is also unable to fire its
Needle beam at the same time as it fires its other beam batteries.
 
Mata Hari-class: Another blatant example of New Bavarian propaganda.
The specs given do not include the cost of the Partial Streamlining;
because of this the ship is actually TMF 44, NPV 141.

Cagliastro CE: OK.

Shangri-La CL: Average hull gives 14 hull boxes, not 19 (data sheet is
correct, text isn't) and the cost is 162.
 
Cthulhu CA: Average hull gives 21 hull boxes, not 19 (data sheet is
correct, text isn't). Apart from that it's OK.
 
Weishaupt BC: Bavarians! What else is there to say? Well, OK, I can say
"TMF 104, NPV 353, 31 hull boxes" <g> Dropping the ADFC (which is IMO
fairly pointless anyway with only 2 PDS) gives the correct TMF (100),
correct number of hull boxes (30) and TMF 337. This ship may find
itself a bit short on FCs, though.

Dean's reinforcements:

General note: None of the texts mention FTL drives. So far all of the
designs are FTL-capable, but there might be a problem if you start
doing IF ships :-)

ESU:

Nanuchka I CT and Riga FF: Both look pretty effective to me. Why did
they go out of fashion?

Grisha FF: With the all-arc weapons, I would drop its drive to 4 and
carry 3 armour (ie, turning it into a close escort for convoys or
heavies rather than a fast patrol/raider/interceptor, since that role
is already filled by the Kunitsa).
 
Kunitsa FF: See comments to Grisha.
 
Krivak DD: With the stats given on the data sheet, this ship should
only
cost 80. 3 Mass are unused which fits with the "long obsolete" status,
though it might be a bit over the top (...under the top?...) for such a
small ship; I'd give it 1 point of armour and/or drop its TMF to 25.
 
Kiang CL: Judging from the NPV and TMF stated I'd say that it carries 4
armour, but they are missing both on the data sheet and in the text. My
preferrence would be to carry a fourth C2-3 battery by reducing the
6-arc ones to 3-arc (or by reducing one of them to 3-arc and dropping 1
point of armour) - the ESU doesn't seem that fond of all-arc weapons,
though the Volga experiment may of course have proved successful <g>
 
Beijing/A: Meeza lika! <G> Just the way to go IMO - 3 Mass unused to
show obsolecence, and a severe lack of FCs to boot :-) However, for
reasons described more closely below I'd suggest removing all its
armour and making the hull Strong instead (cost should be 193 IIRC).
Yes, that means that the 2158 refit was very extensive :-/

>"Ship prior to introduction of Manchuia BC.  Instead of the strong
hulls of
>the Manchuria and related classes, these theoretical ships use average
>hulls and armour along with screens. "

(Nitpick: Manchu*r*ia)

I don't like any of the Slava BC, Sverdlov BB and Vostok BDN. Or,
rather, I *do* like them, but I don't think they're appropriate as
"old-fashioned ESU units". 

Why? Because a strong hull and screens is considerably less effective
than an average hull, armour and screens (and is no cheaper, given the
current hull and armour costs). This means that these three "old" units
are actually more powerful than the ships supposed to replace them (the
Manchuria BC, Petrograd BB and Rostov BDN), in spite of the fact that
they are smaller and cheaper and in spite of their slightly
shorter-ranged weaponry. IOW, replacing these ships with the Manchuria
family would have been a very, very bad deal for the VKF.

In addition the old Komarov and Konstantin classes already use strong
hulls + screens for capital ships, so this design concept clearly isn't
new to the ESU. The 2-arc heavy batteries of the Vostok makes it look
very much like a smaller version of the Komarov, so it should have a
strong unarmoured hull for that reason alone <G>

Given that the earliest armoured ESU design we know of is the Beijing/B
from 2158, I suspect that the ESU simply didn't armour their ships
before that year - no doubt due to insufficient quality materials or
something like that... I've seen pictures of Chinese armour plate both
"before" and "after", and if they were the leading ESU member I
wouldn't be the least surprised if something like this happens again
<g> Later cruiser designs - the Tibet, Beijing/B and Voroshilev - all
use efficient armour/screen combinations (when the Russian techs have
recuperated, or they've stolen the armour technology from the NSL :-)
); naval conservativism is probably the reason why the Manchuria family
uses strong hulls instead of armoured ones.

Of course, this all leads up to my own Catoism: FB Hull should only
cost 1xMass, Armour should cost 2xMass <G>

NSL:

Niblung FF: Should be Nib*e*lung; otherwise
OK.
 
Lutzow DD: A big brute... with that many batteries with different fire
arcs,
I'd very much want a second FC. I know the ESU Volga only has one, but
its third C2 battery is all-arc so can always be combined with at least
one other.
 
My own "NSL DD design study" while I was in the UK came up with this:
TMF 32, NPV 107
Thrust 4, FTL
Avg hull (10)
3 armour
1 FC
2 PDS
3 C1 batteries
2 C2-3 (both FP/F/FS)
 
This ship is a rather radical departure from the normal FB DD armament,
yes :-/ More vulnerable to attacks from its rear arc than normal,
particularly from long range (since the extra C1 partially
compensates); OTOH it doesn't need to charge directly towards the enemy
in order to use both its heavy batteries <g>

Lutjens CA: OK design. I can see why the Markgraf is going to remain
the
mainstay of the NSL cruiser force too <g> The Lutjens is nominally
somewhat more powerful, but less able to concentrate its heavy
batteries.
 
Prinz Eugen CA: Also OK, though I'm tempted to make it TMF 75, NPV 247
and drop 1 armour (slightly higher cost for a slightly lower combat
ability, to
reflect its not-too-badly-outdated age <g>).
 
Bayern BC: Nice.
 
Brocken BB: Nice. It might miss the PT-3 (FH) of the Maria von Burgund
when fighting screened targets, though - and it definitely has enough
FCs to control it :-) My version (again cobbled up in the UK) was
identical to this one except for being TMF 30/NPV 440 and only having 8
armour.

Habsburg SDN: Nice design, though it seems somewhat modernized - it is
still a quite capable combat unit. With modern measurements it only
ranks as a DN, but it *is* old <g>

 
FSE:
 
Ianesco FF: A Romanian name, or Greek? Nice design.

Flaubert FF: OK.

Suffren CL variants - OK (though the Suffren/B isn't that good IMO; the
main weaknesses of this class is its low overall survivability (ie, a
small
chance to fire all its missiles) and the poor secondary firepower, not
its
lack of point defence :-/ )

Colbert CE: Nice ship.

Cobert/E CE: Very nice. The FSE has needed a decent ADFC carrier for a
long time.

Garibaldi DN: State-of-the-art systems when it was built (ie, no
"wasted"/unused Mass anywhere), but the entire
single-launcher-with-huge-magazine is misplaced nowadays   :-)
 
Aragon DN: Looks OK.
 
Venito DN: Hm... named after a certain Italian "gentleman", or
something/ someone else? Design is TMF 153, NPV 508 with the equipment
given;
it needs to drop 3 Mass of weapons to be TMF 140, NPV 465.

Chirac SDN: OK. Same comments as for the Garibaldi, though not as
heavily emphasised <g>

Beth's IAS ships, found via the GZGverse Encyclopedia page:
 
McMurdo modular freighter: OK. Interesting concept - expensive in
one-off battles, but it should prove very useful in campaigns :-)

Amundsen explorer: If the ship has Avg hull as specified, then it has 4
hull boxes and costs 68. With a Weak hull it gets the stated 3 hull
boxes
and NPV 66, but then it has 1 Mass unused (probably supply storage
space for a long-range explorer, but it isn't mentioned anywhere).

Borchgrevink STL Boat: Avg hull gives 4 hull boxes, not 3. NPV is
correct
here, though.
 
Filchner STL Flyer: OK
 
Davis STL Shuttle: OK
 
Vinsin	Massif (shouldn't it be Vins*o*n?) CV: Which generation of ECM
is used? The TMF suggests Superior ECM, but that'd make the NPV incl.
standard fighters 856 rather than 852.
 
Erebus Arsenalship: Ha... hm. Design is legal (assuming Superior ECM),
but 2 P-torps *and* beams, and only one single FC?
 
Maud CA(V): Legal design (assuming Superior ECM), but, well... the ADFC
seems a bit extravagant with only 1 PDS to support it :-/
 
Wilkes CE: ECM not specified, but the NPV and TMF strongly suggest that
the ship has Superior ECM but only Enhanced Sensors (not Superior
Sensors as specified).
 
Zotikov Patrol Cruiser: Assuming Superior ECM, the cost incl. std
fighters
is 297.
 
Metz DD, Shackleton FF, Byrd SC: OK
 
Modules:
How is the module NPV calculated? Most of them seem to be (21 (for
basic structure) + cost of systems), but not all:

Warfighting -  NPV 101 (rather than 97) assuming Superior ECM
(otherwise there's 1 Mass unused)

Missile -  NPV 84 (rather than 114), or have you upped the cost of MT
missiles?


Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry