Re: FT: Marine carriers?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Ryan Gill wrote:

> 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.

I was thinking of very basic things like structural integrity during
high-G maneuvering; never mind enemy fire ;)

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

<snip> Interesting stuff; worth considering if I do end up going for NAC
:)

Cheers,

   Derk
> 
> >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...

Except that nobody's been playing FT around here, yet ;)

> >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....

Mmm, ok.
 
> >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.

Okay... I was just thinking on some pulp SF I reread recently for
scenario
ideas (Battlecruiser Shenandoah), where the capital ship is taken into
low
atmospheric maneuvering; allowed for close fire support, but mainly
scared
everyone's pants off (including the skipper)

Cheers,

   Derk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine

iD8DBQE7IB/rJXH58oo6ncURAq71AKCB+O0nlfdd4zz4PKTvF+eKPo0rqwCglnfG
Eo7Pv9bAweGi/aOLex/9vkU=
=v0Gr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----