Re: FT-Subs?

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: FT-Subs?

>
>
> Bif Smith wrote:
>
> > I was just wondering if anybody uses subs, and how do you
play/design
them?
> > I was thinking of either using a cloaking device, or ECM to allow
them
to
> > hide in a system, and take pot shots at merchantmen etc. Equiping
them
with
> > a Cl.1 bat and a P.Torp (or a missile) with a single PDS would be
useful
> > against merchantmen while being cheap.  Just thinking of a way to
make
small
> > ships useful in a strategic sence in comercial warfare (like the
wolf
packs
> > in WW2).
>
> There are two aspects of subs that are difficult to model in FT
without
turning
> it into a naval miniatures game:
>
> 1)  Torpedoes were more devastating than p-torps (relatively speaking)
as
few
> merchies (besides the ones loaded with lumber) could survive even a
single
hit,
> but the subs carried only a limited number (even the LA class SSN's
only
carried
> 26 weapons).
>
> 2) Subs can fire torpedoes while submerged (cloaked), but have only
limited
> maneuverability and endurance (before nuclear power).
>
>
> The first can be redressed by a new weapon system.  Pulling numbers
and
effects
> out of my ass, the launcher has a mass of three and can cover three
arcs.
Each
> torpedo salvo has a mass of 2 and can engage a target at up to 30mu. 
To
score a
> hit, the launching vessel must roll equal to, or greater than, the
thrust
used
> by the target.  A hit causes 6d6 of damage, but a d6 of damage can be
exchanged
> (before resolving the attack) to increase the to-hit roll by one.  A
one-shot
> torpedo rack has a mass of 4.
>

Yes, I was trying for a design within the FT system, without the need
for
new weapons or systems. A P.Torp system would be good enough against
freighters, even though more than 1 shot would be required (in my mind
anyway). Also, a P.Torp is inposible to intercept, which torpedos are
(as
opposed to SML`s). If conbinded with the cloaking/diving system given
below,
you could have a very good protracted hide and seek battle between a
merchant convoy and escorts Vs a "wolfpack".

> The second problem is solved by creating a battery bank system.  Each
battery
> bank requires 5% of the vessel's mass and stores energy.  Energy is
needed
to
> cloak, apply thrust, and fire torpedoes.  There are two levels of
cloaking,
> periscope and deep.  Torpedoes can only be fired from periscope depth,
and
it
> takes a turn to move between deep and periscope.  Due to an
instability in
the
> cloaking device, vessels on deep cloak are lost if they run out of
stored
> energy.
>
> Convoy escorts need a device like a k-gun (depth charge thrower). 
Escorts
can
> detect subs passively at a range of six times the applied thrust (less
applied
> thrust of the escort) and can use a firecon to search a single arc for
a
sub
> within 24 mu (only twelve when the sub is deep).  Passive does not
work
aft, and
> active does not detect a sub within 12 in the forward arc [I do not
know
why,
> just that for some historical and technical reason, subs fell off the
scope
> during attack runs in WWII].
>
>

The idea for a cloaking system/diving equipment that limits the number
of
turns/endurance/speed while cloaked I like. As for the "depth charge"
weapon, instead we can have when the sub is at "periscope depth" (torp
fire
only allowed) the escorts fire there weapons at one range band greater.
This
would require a lot of guess work on both sides, for the subs on how
long to
remain "submerged"/endurance, and the defenders as to where the subs
will
"surface/come to attack depth".