Re: FT: Marine carriers?

At 10:36 AM +0200 6/7/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
>Nw, I'm using NAC for my SG games, but can't say I much like the NAC
>designs for FT much; the bridges (?) extended on long necks strike me
as
>too StarTrek, and I can't imagine why anyone'd build a spaceship with
such
>an obvious structural problem-waiting-to-happen. (Correct me if there
is a
>very good reason for the long necks; i'm mildly curious)

I see the design as offering optimum fields of fire for the weapon 
and sensor arrays. A heavily armoured neck is very hard to hit 
compared to the rest of the vessel and probably ends up being just as 
resilient.

Coincidentally, I have a easy conversion for making a Gator Carrier. You
need:

an Inflexible CVL
a Bridge and neck section (I end up calling these spades) from a
Vandenberg
a wings and things small wing (the one without the weapons arrays and 
with the underside spinal truss...)

Assemble the CVL as normal sans the flight deck. (you're operating 
small shuttles and larger LSU (Landing Shuttle Utilitys size 5) for 
getting troops down in either tactical form.

Attach the neck section of the spade to the Port side upper hull 
section on the	beveled corner.

Undercut the wing projection with a cut out in its base (note the 
lines that run along its length) so it has better fit against the 
front of the right side of the launch bay. This gives you a launch 
rail for the fighter group that supports the assault operation and 
gives your close air support marines a place to launch.

I run the mass close to the same as an Inflexible, and end up with a 
good sized assault group. So far I've built three of these...

Hope you like ASCI art...

  |---------\ __		  _--__
  |	     \			 |_  __-   <-- attached  and bent strut
spade
  -----------------------------\/  --
  |				|
  |				|
  |				|
  |				|
  |				|----------
  |				|	 __| <-- ground attack fighter
  |				|___-----	 flight deck
  -----------------------------/
  |	     /__
  |---------/

>I like the looks of the NSL and FSE ships. Is it remotely possible to
use
>either and 'pretend' they're canon NAC with NAC specs or would this be
>ludicrous? (I'm not too bothered here, I wouldn't much mind using the
>stats for the FSE designs or NSL designs)

That will confuse your opponents...

>
>I haven't played FT and only have the basic rules. So I'm curious if
>either NAC, NSL or FSE has very significant disadvantages to be aware
of?

Depends on your play doctrine. NAC seems to have the most well 
rounded ships. Generally fast, well armed, and defended. NSL are 
amazingly slow and ponderous.
FSE are faster than the NSL and on par with the NAC (BDNs and SDNs 
excepted generally) but rely on ordinance armament, they have lots of 
throw weight and then run dry and have to run. I'd hate to have to 
press home a long term battle with FSE ships....

>And now, back to the topic of the post... Are there any ship designs
that
>are specifically designed as marine interface operation ships? I'm
>thinking support for landing operations, orbital fire support etc? Mmm.
>What's the largest class of ship that can do atmospherical maneuvering?

What you choose to pay for. I figure you don't want to go over some 
nebulous number. Though I've begun to think that for truely effective 
amphib operations you're going to need landing ships that can get 
down to off load the really heavy stuff. Something akin to the LSTs. 
The Shuttles that GZG makes (they have wings and some smallish fin 
like projections) would make good landing ships. Obviously these go 
in after the theatre air defense environment has been dealt with.

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -