RE: UNSC fleet carrier design

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:

> In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89C5C@VSTASV1>
>	    "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> 
> > Modules wouldn't really be feasable for a design this large due to
the lack
> > of hulls to fit them to (the FSE Jeanne D'arc is only in single
figures).
> > 342 mass is really too large (it screams "target" on every sensor
> > available).
> 
> Well, have you seen the figure! (it is a) big, and b) noticably
modular,
> and I have a psychological limitation "must design ships to have
systems
> represented by features on the figures" - which is a pain) 

Out of curiosity, how do you work the standard line of GZG figs, then?

And you must LOVE the Superior line of Starfleet Wars ships.  :-)

>Frankly I
> agree that its a bit big, (other people seem to think 'the bigger the
> better') - at least FT doesn't give bonuses to hitting things because
> they're large :-)

It's been my take on this that the ranges between vessels is SO large
that size is basically nullified to an approximation value - e.g, all
ships are essentially the same size at a distance of 1000 km, ya know?

> > With mixed armament, it would be better to have something like the
NSL
> > carriers, with 4-5 fighter groups & respectable armament.  It's too
> > undergunned for a SDN sized ship; once the fighters are gone, a
Valley Forge
> > (190 mass) will tear it apart.
> 
> Once the fighters are gone (presume you mean destroyed) it runs away
> (well, tries to) - but point taken (this is a _UN_ ship - probably
> designed by committe :-).

Not *my* UN committee!	;-)

Mk