Prev: Re: UNSC fleet carrier design Next: RE: UNSC fleet carrier design

Re: [FT] UNSC design

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:00:23 +0200
Subject: Re: [FT] UNSC design

Paul Radford wrote:

>Experience has taught many of us that thrust 4 ships really are not
the >best for single arc weapons (I get the impression that NAC ssds
are >quite unpopular)

Not sure about that. They're very unpopular with my group, but others
on the list seem to have other opinions <g>

>but where Tuffleyverse designs are concerned, doctrine is

Doctrine is based on the enemies you expect to fight as well as the
locations you expect to fight in. The FB1 NAC ships are very much
designed to fight ESU capitals - the *old* ESU capitals, ie. thrust-2
monsters with level-2 screens... if your intended target is thrust-2,
thrust-4 is enough to let you aim a single-arc P-torp.

>So, while not completely effective, a class 3 rail gun is on average,
>same as a p-torp with regards to damage it can cause. A class 4 rail
>gun is more effective.

Um... no, a K3 inflicts on average almost 30% more damage than a P-torp

>-KPI (Kinetic Penetrator,  Incendiary) are a penetrative round
designed >to penetrate the hull, vapourising into directed plasma. This
could ignite >the very structure of the ship (pyphoric effect) and
create significant >blast overpressure capable of blowing out whole
hull sections. In game >terms, they would damage equal to rail gun
class. Each subsequent >turn, the ship will take two points of damage
from the spreading >incendiary effect until it is dealt wth by damage
control teams (as in the >same way that Sa'Vasku leach pods are dealt

Hm. If turns are 20 minutes long - heck, even if they're just 2 minutes
-  that's a pretty impressive incendiary effect...

Oerjan Ohlson

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

Prev: Re: UNSC fleet carrier design Next: RE: UNSC fleet carrier design