Re: Retrograde skirmishers

Oerjan wrote:
> One more comment to stiltman@teleport.com's post: wrote:
> >The average is probably about 60-80.  I think I've been pretty clear
> >about that. 
> ....
> >I'm talking about ships that might dedicate about 10-20% of their
> >total weapons mass to point defense being played in my games.  
 
> Ah, 10-20% of the *weapons* mass. Missed that the first time I read
the
> post. That's some 60-140 Mass for PDS in the entire fleet, depending a
> bit on how fast your ships are.
 
> Curiously enough, it is pretty close to the percentages of their
weapon
> mass most FB1 ships use for PDS - the ships you said are very
> under-equipped in the point defence department. This is part of the
> reason why I find your earlier statements about your PDS levels
> contradictory.

10% was a guesstimate I made when I didn't have my notebook of designs
in
front of me.  Pulling it open, I'm seeing from 20-25% in most of the
ship
designs that are built with the assumption that they won't have carrier
support, as opposed to around 5-9% on the FB1 ships.

For instance, the Valley Forge class NAC SDN has four point defenses at
190 mass.  A ship in our games that expected to have light or no carrier
support would have at _least_ ten at that size, possibly closer to 12 or
even 15.
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 The Stilt Man		      stiltman@teleport.com
   http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
   < We are Microsoft Borg '98.  Lower your expectations and	>
   < surrender your money.  Antitrust law is irrelevant.	>
   < Competition is irrelevant.  We will add your financial and >
   < technological distinctiveness to our own.	Your software	>
   < will adapt to service ours.  Resistance is futile. 	>