Re: Brigade's SemFed designs

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> No, not even commercial companies get away from my scrutiny <g>
>
> First off, the "clock direction" system is somewhat difficult to read.
> Tony, may I suggest that you use the fire arc codes on p.4 in FB
> instead?
>

Don't have my copy of the FB to hand but I will have a look at these.

>
> CAPITAL SHIPS
>
> Ben Gurion Class SDN is NPV 611, not 610.

Hull mass 176 = 176 pts
Hull Integrity 3 (average) = 53 (52.8) mass = 106 pts
Main Engines 2 = 18 (17.6) mass = 36 pts
FTL = 18 (17.6) mass = 36 pts
Armour 9 = 9 mass = 18 pts
Screens 2 = 18 (17.6) mass = 54 pts
PDS x 4 = 4 mass = 12 pts
FCS x 4 = 4 mass = 16 pts
Class-3 (2-arc) x 6  = 30 mass = 90pts
Class-3 (3-arc) x 1 = 6 mass = 18 pts
Class-4 (1-arc) x 2 = 16 mass = 48 pts

This definitely adds up to 610 pts. The areas for ambiguity are those
involving rounding, so I've put fractional values in brackets to show my
working. This all comes straight from my spreadsheet (as I say, I don't
have my FB to hand so I can't check these right now).

>
>
> Ramat David Class DN is NPV 511, not 499. It is equipped with 2
> "Class-2 (11-1)" (ie, (F)-arc only) batteries, but but C2 batteries
> come with 3 arcs as minimum.
>

Whoops, typo, should be "11-5".

>
> CARRIERS
>
> Dayan Class CVA: Design is OK, but to me "Hangar Space-72" means one
> single huge hangar with space for 72 Mass of small craft rather than a
> hangar with space for 48 Mass (8 fighter squadrons) or 8 separate
> fighter bays. Not sure which of the latter two you mean, but some of
my
> Needle-armed ships would love a single huge hangar <g>
>

Hmmm, I guess that isn't too clear. The ship has 72 mass allocated for
hangar space, which allows it to carry 48 mass of small craft. These are
allocated as 8 fighter bays as you suspect.

>
> Gavish Class CVL: Uses only 91 Mass. It looks as if it is supposed to
> have a Level-1 Screen; this would give the correct TMF and NPV but is
> missing on the web page. Same problem with the hangars as the Dayan -
> it only has space for 24 Mass of small craft/fighters (ie, 4
> squadrons), not 36.
>

Yep, correct, one screen (doh !).

>
> CRUISERS
>
> Meir Class CH: OK. It carries 4 Class-2: 2 x 9-3 (FP/F/FS) and 2 x
> 7-1 (AP/FP/F), ie Alarishi-style offset batteries - but only for the
> light guns, since the C3 batteries are mounted symmetrically. Is this
> intentional?
>

Damn, they should be 2 x 7-1 and 2 x 11-5 (too much late night cutting
and
pasting here).

>
> Sharon Class CL: This ship can't fit 3 3-arc Class-3 batteries; they
> should be C2s to fit the TMF and NPV.
>

Yep.

>
> Soltam Class CA: Shouldn't this ship have some FCs? <G> (Judging from
> the TMF and NPV specified, it should have 3 of them but they're not
> listed on the web page.)
>

Ooops ... three sounds about right.

>
> ESCORT VESSELS
>
> Reshef Class CT: This ship is either TMF 14, NPV 47 or TMF 15, NPV 50,
> but *NOT* TMF 15, NPV 47... apart from that it's OK <g>

The error was in an older version of the spreadsheet which didn't
calculate
the weapon mass correctly (only added the mass of one weapon, not both)
so
it should be 15, 50. However, there's no advantage gained from this (the
difference is simply in the mass of the FTL, yes ?) so I guess I'll make
it
14, 47.

> ASSAULT SHIPS
>
> Merkava Class Assault Ship: Only uses 152 Mass. Screen-1 missing?

Yes.

>
> " Hanger Space-32; 2 x fighters groups plus 2 x TMF 10 shuttles"
>
> This is the biggest reason I complained about all those carriers
above;
> here you suddenly state the total capacity of the hangar instead of
its
> total size instead of the other way around :-/ I much prefer this
> notation to the one used for the other carriers, though.
>

Fair point. I'll clarify the way that I state hanger space for all
ships.

>
> Shafrir Class Assault Lander: If this is a *lander*, I'd probably want
> some streamlining as well :-/
>

Hmmm ... good point also. My spreadsheet doesn't cater for streamlining
which is why I forgot it !

>
> MERCHANTS AND FREIGHTERS
>
> Negev Class Heavy Freighter: OK, but... screens on a Fragile hull
looks
> like a waste of money since they only give about half the protection
> the same Mass of armour would (if they protect at all, which they only
> do against beams and EMP missiles at the moment), and they cost more
> than the armour would :-(.
>
> Golan Class Container Ship: OK, but see Negev comment about screens.

Interesting point. I tend to design my ships to what feels 'right',
rather
than analysing the designs to provide the most efficient ships (unless
I'm
playing a grudge match, in which case I can min-max with the best of 'em
...). So, what do the rest of you think - what's most appropriate for a
merchant ship - screens or armour ? My argument goes with screens as a
self-contained system that can be easily removed or replaced ("chuck out
the screen generator, Number One - we can squeeze another three
containers
of Rigellian Ivory in there").

>
>
> Golan Class Merchant Fighter Carrier: Judging from the TMF and NPV of
> this ship, the External Fighter Rack is Mass 10, Cost 30 - ie larger
> and more expensive than a standard fighter bay. If that is true,
what's
> the point with using the external rack (except that the model looks
> cool)?
>

Bug in the older spreadsheet again. NPV is in fact 257. For some reason
I've entered two FCS in the spreadsheet as well, whereas there isn't
much
point giving it more than one ... which means I have an extra mass to
play
with. I'll have to rework this altogether. The external fighter racks
I've
costed up simply as a fighter bay (mass-9, 27pts) since I give them an
identical functionality in a game.

>
> Sinai Class Light Merchant Cruiser: 3 Mass are unused. Should it be
> Thrust-4 instead?
>

Yep

Thanks for all that (I think). Looks like a repair session with Homepage
is
required ...

Tony