Re: Decals

"Thomas.Barclay" wrote:
> 
> > Here are the latest numbers:
> >
> > 12x SC CT FF DD
> >  8x FFH DDG DDH
> 
> ** Okay, what's the H? DDG says to me guided missile destroyer. I'd
prefer
> the more generic DD. I'm not sure what the H qualifier adds? Anyone?
Is it a
> good idea for GZGverse ships? Is H for heavy frigate? Heavy (super)
> destroyer? If so, can we have normal FFs?

There are 12 normal FF's.  I added FFH because the NAC fields a heavy
Frigate as
well as a "regular" Frigate.
 
> <Someone else said they can't see fielding 12 scouts... maybe we
should give
> them the initial BJ for "things which suck salvo missiles...">

:-)
 
> > 6x CL CE CH
> 
> ** If you're going to use CH, which I can live with, instead of adding
6xCA,
> you could add 6xCM or PC (patrol cruiser or medium cruiser).

Sure, either would work...
 
> > 4x BC BB DN BDN
> > 2x SDN CVL CVE CVH CVA
> 
> ** These are good. (Of course, CVS (Strike Carrier) works too).

That or the cruiser?  Or four cruisers and 2 carriers?
 
> We're only talking about early sheets too - later ones can add in all
the
> "less useful" classes.

Very true...
 
> Also, as far as ship names, a page with 2 copies of each name as...
> 
> Royal Sovereign RNS-	BC-
> Royal Sovereign RNS-	BC-
> 
> ... and the numbers would let each of us assign (since no one has yet
come
> up with a full fleet listing though I'd love to see Indy's to start
with -
> *hint* *hint*) our own numerics to the ships.

Hmmm, not a bad idea.  Still, especially when you get down to the scale
of the
name text (no more than 1mm high) it might get really annoying to cut
and paste
numbers like that.

I'll postpone judgement about that one until after I've gotten the final
draft
of the ID code sheet finished.
 
> The reason for splitting numerics and letter codes is it lets some of
us
> (who want to) label our ships as BC-123 Royal Sovereign and others
label it
> as RNS-123 Royal Sovereign. It allows people to tailor to taste.
(Though
> like most things, some on the list will want it the simplest way,
others
> will want the flexibility...)

Agreed.  I certainly don't mind doing it that way, but if there is a way
to keep
it simple in the majority of cases while still relatively flexable, I'll
stick
with that.
 
> My comment to Dean is if you think you are hamfisted, buy two decal
sheets.
> :) For those of us who are careful, I'd rather have more decals per
sheet.
> I'll buy a second sheet if I'm worried. Otherwise, I have waste decals
to
> the tune of half the sheet....

This is what I'm hoping to avoid.  The optimal solutoin is to have a
single
sheet that will work with 90% of the fleets people have.  I think I've
got that
covered, judging from the responses so far...

Tom

--
Thomas Pope
Human Computer Interaction Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tpope