Re: Far Stars Union--web site for FT

Rob Hofrich wrote:

> Okay, I've finally gotten around to actually setting up a site for my
"Far 
> Stars Union" for Full Thrust.  Nothing fancy (by that I mean it's
REALLY 
> basic)--just some history, high level organization, navy force level,
and 
> some FB designs (more designs coming, but my system didn't want to 
> download  some of the stuff I'd e-mailed myself...).

I must say that it's very refreshing to see a minor state which hasn't
built a score of capital ships rivalling the FSE gigants ;-) (You know
who you are...)

A few comments about the designs published on the page so far:

* The TMF and cost of the Sierra-class frigate both suggest that it
lacks an FTL drive. An FTL ship with the same weapons and armour would
be TMF 21, have four hull boxes and cost 71 (or 2100t and 710MUcr,
respectively).

* However I try, I can't get the cost of the Foxtrot-class DH to more
than 131 (or 1310 MUcr). I also think that its crews are a bit unfair
when comparing it to the Echo; although its weak hull makes it die
slightly faster than the Echo its armour actually allows it to keep its
weapons firing somewhat longer than the Echo. 'Course, the crews might
prefer to survive rather than go down firing 'til the end ;-)

* The cost of the Fair Oaks-class support carrier seems to include a
single fighter squadron. The ship itself only costs 266 (ie, 2660MUcr).

Given the Union's history of war with the FSE and fairly strong ties to
the NSL, I find the extensive use of screens a bit surprising -
especially on unarmoured Weak hulls (eg the carriers) and very small
ships (like the Echo and Foxtrot destroyers). In both cases an
equivalent Mass of armour would give better protection, particularly
against FSE missiles. Comments?

Best wishes,

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