RE: [FT]Star Trek rules?

I did ask for it. We must have different spreadsheets,
but I'll put them in tonight and see where I went
wrong. Fortunately, most aren't typically the
ships I play a lot.

By the way, my "double layer" armor is meant to
be single layer armor, it's just easier to put it
in multiple rows sometimes. There is no game effect.
We don't allow mixed tech (well I don't use it
in any of these ships anyway).

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> David Griffin wrote:
> 
>  >Here are my feeble attempts at Federation Full
> Thrust
>  >designs... [snip] ...Feel free to critique.
> 
> You asked for it <g>
> 
>  >http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed1.jpg
> 
> Nimitz-class supercarrier:
> Listed as TMF 234, NPV 995 (incl.
> standard/interceptor fighters)
> These values would be true if the 6 PDSs are
> removed, but with all the
> systems currently shown on the SSD the ship is TMF
> 243, NPV 1029 (incl.
> fighters). (Also, should the "+" touching the second
> PDS from the left be
> there? <g>)
> 

Should include fighters. Since I run everything
through a spreadsheet (but don't have excel so
I had to make one up with Clarisworks), I'm not
sure what's going on, but I'll check them tonight.
Perhaps I have an error in the spreadsheet
calculations
somewhere. I tried to verify the spreadsheet by
running
the book ships through and was successful doing that.
Oh well.

Ok, here at work, I have a sort of xl clone and
Fleet book designer 1.1 runs on it and I get
yet a third figure for 264/929 including fighters.
You know it has no fire control, right and no
weapons (except for the pds's). Of course, that
isn't my original value either, so I need to figure
this out at home.

The only carrier actually to see battle (carriers
and star trek don't go together well) is the Kiev.

> Galaxy SDN:
> Listed as TMF 250, NPV 856. These values would be
> true if the ADFC is
> removed, but with all the systems shown on the SSD
> the ship is TMF 252, NPV
> 866.
> 

Don't understand this either but I'll check. I
get the same thing you get on the fleet book,
though curiously it's also 255/876. 

> Dominion BDN:
> Listed as TMF 169, NPV 580. These values would be
> true if 1 PDS was removed
> (leaving 4); with the systems currently shown on the
> SSD the ship is TMF
> 170, NPV 584.
> 

ditto.

> New Orleans BB:
> Listed as TMF 130, NPV 449. These values would be
> true if the ADFC is
> removed, but with all the systems shown on the SSD
> the ship is TMF 132, NPV
> 459.
> 

ditto.

>  >http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed2.jpg
> 
> Kongo BC:
> Listed as TMF 115, NPV 400. These values would be
> true if 2 armour or hull
> boxes are removed; with the systems etc. currently
> shown on the SSD the ship
> is TMF 117, NPV 406.
> 

ditto

> Bonhomme Richard BC:
> Listed as TMF 108, NPV 376. TMF is correct, but the
> NPV should be 378.
> 
> Nebula BC:
> Listed as TMF 115, NPV 401. With all the systems
> shown on the SSD the ship
> is TMF 120, NPV 414; I'm not sure what went wrong
> here.
> 
Hmmm... me neither.

> Voyager CH:
> Legal design provided that what looks like two-layer
> Phalon-style armour is
> in fact single-layer Human armour. With the actual
> 2-layer armour layout
> currently shown on the SSD, the NPV is 312.
> 

single layer armor. Not intended to be phalon

> Andor CH:
> Listed as TMF 87, NPV 302, but the ship shown on the
> SSD is TMF 90, NPV 315.
> 
> Locknar CH:
> Legal design, though if you want to min-max it it
> could equally well be TMF
> 72, NPV 250.
> 

I don't necessarily try to minmax down to the
smallest possible size, as a few points tends not
to matter in our pick up games. Still, I'd like
to have the right points.

> Intrepid CL:
> SSD shows 2-layer Phalon-style armour, but the NPV
> says single-layer
> Human-style. Apart from that the design is legal.
> 

human armor

> Defiant CE:
> 1 Mass unused, and the SSD shows 2-layer
> Phalon-style armour. The design
> actually shown on the SSD is TMF 79, NPV 282.
> 

human, not phalon

>  >http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed3.jpg
> 
> Constellation science cruiser:
> Listed as TMF 60, NPV 245; the design as shown is
> only TMF 57, NPV 231.
> 
> Remora DDE:
> Legal design, but the NPV is only 165.
> 
> Baker DD:
> Legal design, but the NPV is only 191. Can be
> min-maxed down to TMF 54, NPV
> 188.
> 
> Larson II DD:
> Listed as TMF 61, NPV 227. TMF is incorrect (should
> be 64), but NPV is OK.
> 
> Wilkerson DH:
> Listed as TMF 27?!?, NPV 257. The design shown on
> the SSD is TMF 73, NPV
> 251.
> 

Actually 75/257, the 27 is a typo (or more precisely
a forgot to modify it from some other ship) I've fixed
this one after posting my SSD's. Didn't notice it
until then. I've played the ship once so far.

> Gagarin science destroyer:
> Listed as TMF 47, NPV 201. The design shown on the
> SSD is TMF 49, NPV 205.
> 
> "Dolphin FH" (Sunfish):
> Legal design, but the NPV is only 81
> 
> "Dolphin FH" (Dolphin):
> Legal design, but the NPV is only 90
> 
> River FF: 1 Mass unused. The design on the SSD is
> only TMF 43, NPV 151 (can
> be min-maxed down to TMF 42, NPV 148).
> 
> Osa II:
> Listed as TMF 10, NPV 36. Design shown on the SSD is
> TMF 11, NPV 41.
> 
> OSA IV:
> Design is illegal; a TMF 16 ship must have at least
> 2 hull boxes. With 2
> hull boxes it would have TMF 17, NPV 64.
> 

right because it rounds up to 10%. That I DO
need to add to the spreadsheet.

> OSA V:
> Design is illegal; a TMF 17 ship must have at least
> 2 hull boxes. With 2
> hull boxes it would have TMF 19, NPV 71.
> 
> I agree with Dean's comment about these designs
> being optimized for Vector 
> :-/ (F)-arc B5-1s aren't all that common in
> Cinematic...

Do most people PLAY cinematic? This group only
plays vector, I haven't even ever played a game
using cinematic movement. I kind of think Vector
movement is what gives Full Thrust a unique feel
to most other games.

I'll report tomorrow on my spreadsheet analysis.
Thanks for the feedback.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail