Re: Prototype UNSC designs

In message <200009111921.VAA02762@d1o902.telia.com>
	  "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> 
> >Well, I finally put digit to keyboard and hacked out my first draft
> >of some UNSC ship designs. The designs have a certain amount of
> >modularity inspired by the castings.
> > 
> >Things to bear in mind - UNSC ships of destroyer and larger in size
> >use standard sized drive modules, which come in two sizes, to
simplify
> >production and maintenance. However, bolting these on to different
> >sized hulls can lead to odd (literally) thrust ratings ;-).
> 
> Um... yes :-/
> 
> >The other standard modules incude a slot in weapons module, (as >seen
> on the DD, CH, SDN, and SDN-X figures - there are two versions >-
three
> cylinders side by side, or a 2-aperture turret) as well as >standard
> sized cargo and fighter hanger modules.
>  
> >These have the following MASS and COST:
> > 
> >Module	 MASS	     COST
> >Medium Thrust  12	      24
> >Large Thrust   25	      50
> >Weapons	   6	    varies
> >Cargo	   5	       2   (adds +1 hull boxes, 4 cargo space)
> > 
> >Cargo modules are usually fitted in groups of 4.

Note, I'm tempted to up the Weapons Module to MASS 7, so I could fit a
SML + 2 shot magazine in it - but it gives me an extra +1 MASS for most
of the other designs to fill :-(
> 
> Hm. Why do the cargo modules add hull boxes when none of the other
> types do?

Urm, well, the answer is they don't, anymore - this was an idea I was
batting around and have discarded since last night.
Any hull implicit in a module is subsumed into the main ship hull
purchase.
>  
> >I'll do the fighter hanger when I get a carrier figure (at colours
> >next week) :-)
> 
> The UNSC fighter bay "modules" aren't as much a module as a new main
> hull, though.

Hmm.. I'll have a look on Saturday.
>  
> >Typical weapons modules:
> >3-arc Class-3 Beam battery COST: 18
> >3-arc Pulse Torpedo COST: 18
> >ADFC + 4 PDS' COST: 20
> >3x MT-Missile racks: COST 18
> >EW module - Superior sensors + area ECM system (pending revised >EW
> rules): COST 60
> 
> The EW module only uses 5 Mass?
'Fraid so, in More Thrust, Superior sensors cost 2 mass, 30 pts, Area
ECM costs3 MASS, 30 pts, I havn't decided which of the new sensor rules
to use, so this bit is a bit of a placeholder.
IMHO ECM mass should be based on MASS of the ship, & area ECM mass based
on the total MASS of all the ships it can protect.
> 
> >Note: most of the weapons layouts are for the 'fully tooled up'
> >version, UNSC ships assigned to 'peacekeeper' duties usually replace
> >some of their 3-arc Class-2 batteries with needle beams, 
> 
> Why not have a couple of "peace-keeping modules" - the weapons *not*
> carried in modules would seem to be harder to refit quickly? That'd
> leave the patrol cutter with no integral armament (not even PDS), only
> a single module... could get problematic with the single FCS since it
> can't fire any other weapons while also firing the needle beam, but
> OTOH it might not be entirely politically correct to fire standard
> anti-ship weapons while trying to "disable" a ship anyway <g>

Well, yes, under design ATM :-)
> 
> >and load MT-missile modules loaded with EMP missiles (or maybe 
> >SMR/SML modules loaded with SM-EMP's - how you know why I 
> >suggested them :-) for political reasons, the theory being that
> >governments are less likely to whine if you simply disable their
> ships, >rather than destroying them (yes, I know, its a _theory_). 
> 
> The option to capture rather than destroy is more important when
you're
> fighting pirates/smugglers, though - their friends and protectors are
> extremely likely to claim that the UNSC "murders innocent civilians"
if
> a
> pirate or smuggler ship is destroyed (witness what happened when NATO
> aircraft bombed Kosovar refugee columns believing they were Serb
armour
> columns... or the furor over the Serb civilian casualties in the same
> war - some media have called the NATO bomb campaign a "genocidal war"
> and likened it with the Nazi treatment of Jews (!) because over a
> thousand Serb civilians died in the bomb raids...). The pirate-friends
> will find this a lot harder to do if the UNSC captures the ship
> (relatively) intact and with (relatively) small casualties on the
> smuggler side :-/

You got it in one!
> 
> >So now the ships - in all cases I've attemped to base MASS and
> >weapons layout on the figures (I compared figures with an FSE BDN
>and
> various small NAC ships for size comparison purposes).
> > 
> >#Patrol Cutter/Frigate type I
> > 
> >Displacement: 2000 tonnes (MASS factor 20)
> >Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity 5)
> >Crew: 5 officers, 15 ratings (Crew Factor 1)
> >Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 1 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries
> >Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems
> >Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 1 Fire-control system
> >Drive systems: Main Drive rating 6, FTL (Jump) Drive 
> >TMF: 20
> >NPV: 68 
> > 
> >The above statistics are for the military Frigate version, a quick
> >re-fit to swap out the Class-2 battery for a needle beam, and replace
> >one of the PDS with an extra FireCon gives the Patrol Cutter version,
> >which costs 1 extra point. (Needle Beam as a 'less than lethal'
> >alternative for patrol duties, extra firecon to _use_ the needle
> beam).
> 
> OK, though see the comments above.
I'm considering different types of modules - say a small mass-2 module
contents: either 3-arc B2, or needle beam, or..
as well as the larger MASS 6 modules.

> 
> >#Lake class destroyer 
> >Displacement: 3400 tonnes (MASS factor 34)
> >Hull type: Weak (Hull Integrity 8)
> >Crew: 8 officers, 26 ratings (Crew Factor 2)
> >Armanent: 2 x Class 1 batteries, 1 x weapons module
> >Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems
> >Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 1 Fire-control system
> >Drive systems: Medium Drive module, rating 7, FTL (Jump) Drive
> > 
> >TMF: 34
> >NPV: 98 + cost of weapons module
> > 
> >A bit flimsy, and rather heavier than I'd like - the thrust rating of
> 7
> >demonstates a disadvantage of the modular drive system :-(
> 
> TMF 96 + cost of module, unless you've charged an extra cost of 2 pts
> for the ability to swap modules.

Err... rats! must check spreadsheet (I've tweeked the designs a bit
already though)
>  
> >#Mountain class Light cruiser
> >Displacement: 5000 tonnes (MASS factor 50)
> >Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity 14)
> >Crew: 13 officers, 37 ratings (Crew Factor 3)
> >Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 3 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries
> >Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems, Grade 4 Armour, Level 1 >Screens	
> >Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 2 Fire-control systems
> >Drive systems: Medium Drive module, rating 5, FTL (Jump) Drive
> > 
> >TMF: 34
> >NPV: 167
> 
> Says "MASS factor 50" and "TMF 34". I assume you mean 50 <g>
Argh! cut & paste error!
> 
> In order to make a TMF 50 ship thrust-5 you need an engine with Mass
> 50*0.25 = 12.5 rounds UP to 13. Your design only has 12 Mass of
> engines, so is thrust-4 (it'd be thrust-5 if it were TMF 49, though).
Spreadsheet error - again :-(
> 
> If you want a thrust-4, TMF 50-52 CL and a thrust-6, TMF 32-34 DD you
> could reduce the Medium Drive module to MASS 10 instead.

Planning to.
> 
> >#River class Heavy cruiser
> > 
> >Displacement: 9000 tonnes (MASS factor 90)
> >Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity 25)
> >Crew: 23 officers, 67 ratings (Crew Factor 5)
> >Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 2 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries, 2x weapons
> >modules Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems, Grade 4 Armour, Level >1
> Screens Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 2 Fire-control systems
> >Drive systems: Large Drive module, rating 6, FTL (Jump) Drive 
> >TMF: 90
> >NPV: 263 + 2 weapons modules
> 
> The Large Thrust module is 2 Mass short for Thrust-6 (90*0.3 = 27; the
> Large Thrust module is only 25). The ship only uses 89 of its 90 Mass,
> but it'd need to be TMF 91/NPV 264+modules to have room for big enough
> engines (or drop a hull/armour box, or be thrust-5 with oversized
> engines).
> 
> >#Gaia class Superdreadnought
> > 
> >Displacement: 24000 tonnes (MASS factor 240)
> >Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity 60)
> >Crew: 60 officers, 180 ratings (Crew Factor 12) plus fighter pilots
> >Armanent: 2 x B1, 2xB2-6, 2xB3-2, 2xB3-3, 2xWpn module
> >Defences: 6 Point Defence Systems, Grade 12 Armour, Level 2 >Screens
> >Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 4 Fire-control systems
> >Drive systems: 2 x Large Drive module, rating 4, FTL (Jump) Drive
> >Hanger bays: 2 bays holding 12 fighters
> > 
> >TMF: 240
> >NPV: 782 + 2 weapons modules + 12 fighters
> 
> Uses 2 Mass more than necessary for its engines (has 50 Mass of
> engines; needs only 48); apart from that it's OK.

Disadvantage of the modular approach - as are some of the other errors
you pointed out.
>  
> >#Sol class Extended-Range Superdreadnought 
> >Displacement: 32800 tonnes (MASS factor 328)
> >Hull type: Weak (Hull Integrity 64)
> >Armanent: 2 x B1, 2xB2-6, 2xB3-2, 2xB3-3, 2xWpn module
> >Defences: 6xPDS, 12 Armour, Level 2 Screens
> >Sensor suite: 4 Fire-control systems
> >Drive systems: 4 x Large Drive module, rating 6, FTL Drive
> >Hanger bays: 1 bay holding 6 fighters, 1 capacity 6-MASS hanger bay
> >Cargo bay: 4 x Cargo modules (capacity 16 MASS)
> > 
> >TMF: 328
> >NPV: 1015 + 2 weapons modules + 6 fighters + 1 MASS-6 small craft
> 
> Needs only 98 Mass of engines; the ship has 100 Mass of engines. Basic
> cost is 1023 (with the oversized engines), not 1015.
> 
> >Yup, its' huge, in fact it is _too_ big, but I hit a snag with
modular
> >ships designs - its called Screens - and its been discussed on this
> >list before :-(
> 
> Which is the main enemy of these ships - other human forces in the 3rd
> Solar War, or the Kra'Vak in the (1st) Xeno War? (Yes, I know the
> humans fought both Phalons and SV as well as the KV during the Xeno
> War, but the Kra'Vak were the main threat.) The above UNSC ships are
> heavily slanted towards fighting humans and/or Phalons; if the Kra'Vak
> are seen as the main enemy (but you still want to fight Phalons or
> humans with the same ship) you don't need quite *that* heavy screens 
> :-/
These are the initial "Lets just try and impress everyone" designs from
before the Xeno war - i.e I designed them to fight other humans. Later
models will probably cut back on screens for other systems.

> 
> Later,
> 
> 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
> 
>
Thanks a lot for the comments - I've already done a bit of a re-design
- and I'll integrate your comments.

Incidentally, I've been re-reading the old thread started by A.E. Brain
when they introduced their modular OU design, and I've found some
interesting approaches, thanks people!

Charles.

--