Re: FT Ship Generation

Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Here's my suggestion:
> 
> A five category system
> - archaic
> - 3rd line
> - 2nd line
> - current 1st line
> - state of the art (or experimental)
>
>Current 1st line is the *default* which the FT and FB rules outline.
>
>Space usage efficiency as a f'n of tech quality:
>Archaic = 70%
>3rd line = 80%
>2nd line = 90%
>1st line current = 100%
>state of the art = 110%
>
>When designing a ship, decide which generation it is. Size the hull as
>normal, then size each component by a multiplier of 100/percentage
from >the above table. Which is to say that an archaic ship would size
all >components on a multiplier of 100/70 = 1.43. A state of the art
ship would >size each component by a size of 0.91.

*EACH* component, including hull and engines?

This leads to an awful lot of Mass fractions (...HPLC, anyone? <g>).
When do you round things off?

> This represents the "size efficiencies of technology".
> 
> One also has to represent the quality. This is reflected in a number
of
> areas:
[snip]
> Weapons Fire:
> Poorer FC systems and FC sensor will translate to poorer effective >
ranges. 

<chuckle> This uses the very same logic as I and Noam used in the
"stealth" hull debate some time ago. IIRC, Thomas was one of our main
opponents in that discussion; it is nice to see that you've turned
around to the Light <G>

> Reduce range bands by 1" per 12" for every level below normal, or 
> increase similarly for above average. This is represented in the
table
> below:

> tech quality: 	 12" band becomes:	   6" band becomes:
> archaic			9"				4.5"
> 3rd line		       10"				5"
> 2nd line		      11"				5.5"
> 1st line (current)	   12"					       
  6"
> state of the art	    13" 				       
 6.5"

[snip]

> Points: Not sure yet.

Think long and hard, and when you've reached a conclusion double the
points cost differences you arrived at :-/

> Something like this puts a 2nd line ship at a disadvantage, but not
an
> insufferable one. 

Assuming all components, including the hull and the engines, of a 2nd
line ship uses up 111% of the normal Mass *and* it uses 11mu range
bands, a 2nd line ship has roughly 75-80% of the combat power of a 1st
line ship of the same Mass and similar design. This is roughly equal to
the difference between an ESU Voroshilev-class CH and an NSL
Richthofen-class BC, and I'm not at all convinced that I'd call the
CH's disadvantage a "not insufferable" one in this duel.

If the hull and engines retain their normal Masses while all the other
systems change, the 2nd line ship has closer to 90% of the 1st liner's
combat power; this is less uneven, but still a quite significant
difference.

> An archaic ship from the 2090s would be at a big disadvantage.

It would indeed. If engines and hull are increased in mass, it'd have
roughly half the combat power of a 1st line ship of the same Mass and
similar design; if engines and hull retain their normal mass it'd have
roughly 65% the combat power of its 1st line rival (eg, a Vandenburg/T
pitted against a Victoria-class BB).

> It also gives a minor boost to state of the art ships...

If the engines and hulls are decreased in Mass they'll have roughly
115% the combat power of 1st-line ships; if engines and hulls retain
their Mass the state-of-the-art ships are roughly 12% better than 1st
line ships. 

The NSL Maria von Burgund-class BB has roughly 15% higher RCP than the
NAC Victoria-class BB. In their case however, the Victoria is more
maneuverable whereas the state-of-the-art ships would have the MvB's
combat power advantage over a 1st line ship without suffering from the
poor maneuverability of the MvB. While this boost is minor compared to
the differences between the other categories of your proposal, it isn't
that minor in the game.

The effect of each of your modifications isn't very big, but they are
cumulative. The total impact of a one-category difference is very
significant indeed, and it is pure hell to try and set reasonably
correct points costs for. That's the main reason why I limited myself
to "wasting" Mass (the other reason being that my version can be used
in any ship-design spreadsheet which accounts for cargo spaces, without
modifying the spreadsheet :-) )

Regards,

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