Re: DS/FT/SG: Tuffleyverse Cannon & Personal Stratrgy/Tactics/Design Philosophies

> How many people out there ever stray from the official "Tuffleyverse"
and
> come up with their own political/military powers to scrap it out

I personally tend to stick with the Tuffleyverse. Except that I also
have a line of Star Trek:TOS ships. But that's for FT. I don't play DS2
or SG much.

I'm not heavily into "anything goes" battles, preferring to make
sub-optimal ships that conform to a particular background's design
philosophies.
 
> For those that stick to the Tuffleyverse, I have a further question: 
In
> deciding on which entity you'd focus on (Are you FSE? NSL? NAC? etc),
did
> you pick one that reflected your own preferences for tactics and
strategy,
> or did you pick the one with the most esthetically pleasing
> ship/tank/uniform designs (or coolest name), and learn to follow their
> tactical doctrines?  Or do you just pick a power to name yourself, and
> design units/tactics to suit yourself, whether that's typical of s aid
power
> or not?

None of the above, though the last comes closest.

The Tuffleyverse has a number of nations - all except for the NSL, FSE,
NAC and ESU in fact - that have no detail about them at all. Some of the
PAU ships (e.g. Kinshasa ) have been named, and the artwork for that one
suggests it's a possibly-refitted NAC Majestic, but that's about it.

Moreover, Canon ship models for a number of nations - e.g. UN, IF, OU
exist, just with no stats or background for them. A bit like the days
pre FB1.

So I tried to come up with a background and ship design philosophy for
one of these powers, with ships that were neither Galloping
Grossossities nor Creampuffs, which had their own flavour very different
from existing fleets, requiring a completely new set of tactics to use
to best effect.

I started with something as bog-standard as the ESU, then crippled it
(by having no beams larger than Class 2) and then strengthened it (by
allowing replaceable modules for greater operational flexibility - an
opponent doesn't know exactly what mix he'll be facing from battle to
battle), and just plain changing it by having ships that were at worst
average in hull strength, and usually strong. A soupcon of armour, not
too much, as I didn't want the ships to be *too* tough. I deliberately
set the module size at 8 to disallow Fighter bays as modules, fearing
that that would be cheesy - too effective by half.

I find the "get in close" tactics of the OUDF that I created to be
difficult in cinematic, and very difficult in Vector. Yet I've had a lot
of fun in the playtests, when a salvo that would wreck a Battlecruiser
hits a Tuvalu Block II, and it metaphorically picks itself up, shrugs
itself off, and keeps firing. Not firing very well, but it demoralises
the opposition who fully expected it to vanish in a puff of illogic. Not
merely that, but the slightly-over-multiple-of-20-mass means they get an
extra crew for damage control, and the increased hull boxes mean they
tend to lose less crew and weapons in thresholds too. The astute will
notice the relatively small number of ships lost in action, vs the
number scrapped/decommissioned. This is because OU ships often come home
after a losing battle as wrecks fit only for the scrapyard, vs not
coming home at all.
And that fits in with the relatively low population of the OU, and its
need to conserve manpower. It's a gestalt. Reserving the more
sophisticated, larger and expensive weapons for a few non-modular
designs also fits in with the cookie-cutter manufacturing philosophy,
these are "design to price" ships for a 3rd-rate power with 1st-rate
responsibilies.

>From a Minimax viewpoint (ie how effective they are in a 1-off battle )
then if they get with Decisive Range - 12" - they're got more rather
than less firepower than most opponents. At 24" their increased
toughness and increased numbers (they're about 10% cheaper) makes up for
their slightly inferior firepower. Their unusually wide firing arcs
makes them more likely to be within arc when things get mixed up in a
furball in cinematic too. They'd be overly effective if it wasn't for
the fact that most fleets fight quite well at ranges over 24", and that
they are subject to attrition before they can get in close - this is
especially the case with Vector.