RE: Far Stars Union--web site for FT

Okay, I must do a mea culpa and accept responsibility for some messed up
ship displays-I will post the updated versions (correcting the items
mentioned by OO) soon-hopefully before the end of this coming weekend.

As for the other stuff-

RE number of capital ships:
I was actually going to originally give the FSU even fewer vessels until
I
realized that from a manpower perspective, the FT battlecruisers only
use up
the manpower equivalent of a present day SSN, with the lighter ships
requiring even less.  That sort of changed my mind.

My original write-up for the Romanov Hegemony (back before I discovered
that
someone else had already done them) was a fleet that only consisted of
one
battledreadnought, five battleships, three battlecruisers, six escort
carriers, and a bunch of smaller stuff-basically assuming that their
persistence on the interstellar scene was based upon their ability to
counter the ESU with alliances (in other words, the NAC and NSL).

RE general vessel design philosophy (weak hulls, lack of armor, use of
screens on light units):
The Revenge-class carriers are all OLD and have been rebuilt so many
times
that I wanted to show a design/hull that had just been pushed beyond its
limits-hence the weak hulls.  As for the Virginia-that one was modified
so
extensively from its original configuration that I figured the hull
would be
substantially weaker than when originally built.  In each of these
cases,
the vessel was a carrier, and so, based upon the fighter theories
espoused
by the USN, shouldn't actually be placed in the line of battle.  As for
the
Echo/Foxtrot designs and the use of screens instead of armor-while the
nation started out as a breakaway from the NSL, most of the Navy folks
are
Anglian-descended, and tend to think more like the NAC Admiralty than
the
NSL.  The reasons screens were used on the escorts are:

1.	because of the "big ship" thinking of the Brass runs up against
the
limited shipyard capability that the nation has.  In other words, it's a
prestige thing-vessels with screens are OBVIOUSLY more important than
those
without ;-) 
2.	armor wasn't used extensively because armor has to be repaired
between battles-which could take yard time, while screens (unless they
are
knocked out) continue to function.  Think of this as a strategic reason,
not
a tactical one; and finally
3.	the point defense capability of the FSU fleet is pretty good
(much
better than standard designs as most vessels have more PD than
equivalent FB
units and many have ADFC, contributing to the protection of their
squadron-mates, not to mention the fighters), passive defenses are seen
as
the primary method for protecting against beams, while PD handles the
missiles.

The item one must keep in mind is that the FSU is definitely a
third-rate
power and their conflicts with major powers to date have been tertiary
(or
at most secondary) sideline affairs.  Massed capital ship actions are
not
just rare, they are EXTREMELY RARE!  Usually it's a couple of BC or a
light
carrier and escorts per side-and that's considered a major battle by the
FSU.  That's why just one obsolete dreadnought can be such a big factor
in
the fighting out in this far reach of human space.  Or that's how I see
it,
anyway.

To sort of sum this up-the designs presented were not intended to be the
most efficient nor necessarily the best for use in tactical
situations-like
most real-world vessels, their designs are based upon national
production
capabilities, the changing whims of Admiralty, strategic as well as
tactical
considerations, and just plain silliness (in a few instances).	I
appreciate
the comments though and will make the changes referenced above soon!

Robert W. Hofrichter
(who usually posts from rwhofrich@aol.com)

-----Original Message-----
From:	Oerjan Ohlson [SMTP:oerjan.ohlson@telia.com]
Sent:	Thursday, January 06, 2000 10:00 AM
To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject:	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