Re: [FT] my take on the UNSC SDN-X

On  4-Nov-99 at 12:15, Roger Books (books@mail.state.fl.us) wrote:
> This is based off of looking at the miniature.  This thing looks like 
> a US govt republican (IE, big contributions from all the military
> manufactureres) committee designed it.  There's more pork in this
> thing than in the sausage the US collectively had for breakfast.
> 
> Anyway, there are two things I don't like, one is the weak hull, 
> however...
> 
> First, if you don't give it a weak hull it tops the scales at
> 351 without any armor.  That would be OK EXCEPT this things feels
> lighter than my FSE SDN.
> 
> Second, it is obviously a dispersed structure.  Those big wings
> are vulnerable points.
> 
> The other thing I didn't like is I couldn't fit fighter groups on
> without pushing it over the edge.  Anyway, here it is:
> 
> UNSC SDN-X
> 
>  Hull Displacement	    290
>  Point Cost		    1057
>  Hull Strength	    Weak (14/14/13/13)
>  Hull Armor		    10
>  Streamlinin		    None
>  Thrust		    4
>  FTL Capable
>  Passive Sensors
>  Active Sensors	    Superior
>  ECM			    Area-Effect
> 
>  Screen		    Level 2
>  Fire Control System	    (5)
>  ADFC 		    (1)
>  PDS			   (12)
> 
>  MT Missiles		    (3) EMP
>  MT Missiles		    (3) Needle
>  Pulse Torpedo Launcher   FP F 
>  Pulse Torpedo Launcher   FP F 
>  Pulse Torpedo Launcher   FP F 
>  Pulse Torpedo Launcher   F FS 
>  Pulse Torpedo Launcher   F FS 
>  Pulse Torpedo Launche    F FS 
>  SML			    (2)
>  SM Magazine		    Cap: 12  (6 / 4 ER salvos)
>  Beam / 3		    FP F FS 
>  Beam / 3		    F FS 
>  Beam / 3		    FP F 
>  Beam / 2		    FP F FS 
>  Beam / 2		    FP F AP 
>  Beam / 2		    F FS AS 

Ooops
>  PDS			   (12)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The second set of 12 PDS's is a copying error.

Roger