Prev: Re: SaVasku Needle POD Next: Re: SaVasku Needle POD

Re: Retrograde skirmishers

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:36:56 +0200
Subject: Re: Retrograde skirmishers wrote:

>>Curiously enough, it is pretty close to the percentages of their
>>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
>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

The average amount of PDSs+ADFCs (you counted the ADFCs into the "mass
used for point defences" on Noam's design, so I do the same here) on
the FB1 ships is 16.3% of the weapon mass if "weapon mass" means
PDS+ADFC+FC+weapons, or 13.9% if it means "everything which isn't hull
or engines". Right in the middle of your (now withdrawn) claim of
10-20% of the weapon mass used for point defences. The average Mass of
PDSs+ADFCs in a random 5000-point FB1 fleet is 57.
The NSL and ESU can go considerably higher if they use their respective
escort variant cruisers (Kronprinz Wilhelm/E and Beijing/BE), of

If you play 5000-point battles (which you have said several times),
20-25% of your weapon mass (which you state above) should be some
120-140 Mass used for PDSs and ADFCs and not 60-80 as you previously
claimed. It seems that you actually were about as unclear as I
percieved you to be on this point.


Oerjan Ohlson

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry

Prev: Re: SaVasku Needle POD Next: Re: SaVasku Needle POD