Re: OUDF design Qs

> > 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.
> 
> The Tuwalu block Is do this individually, if they fill both module
slots
> with Standard or Gunpack modules. The others are a bit more arguable
though
> - they don't really have any more firepower per mass of ship than the
> published FB1 ships. 

Based on playtests where Tuvalu Block IIs were against NAC Torp-armed
Vandenburgs, NSL and ESU cruisers with forward-arc-only Class 3s, and
where a lot of the ships spent over 50% of their time in PA or SA arcs.
 
>What they do have in spades is survivability, but
> that's something else.

Agreed.
 
> >At 24" their increased toughness and increased numbers (they're about
10%
> >cheaper) makes up for their slightly inferior firepower.

> 1-3% cheaper per MASS is more accurate for combat-equipped BORON
ships,
 
How did that 0 creep in? Must have been from a Lee-Lu shipyards sales
brochure.
The Tuvalu Block I with 2 Gunpacks is described as Very Expensive. In
fact, it costs about as much as a standard CA. Tuvalu Block I is what, 8
pts cheaper? call it 3%.

> >Their unusually wide firing arcs makes them more likely to be within
arc
> >when things get mixed up in a furball in cinematic too.
> 
> Um, Alan? I've meant to ask you this for over a year, but... which FB1
> ships are you looking at when you call the BORON firing arcs
"unusually wide"?

Compare Tuvalu Block I or II with gunpacks vs 267-280 pt NSL, ESU or NAC
CAs.
Compare Numbat with Furious for example.

The FSE is equally good as the OU when it comes to firing arcs,but has
half the hull boxes. Though maybe not after they've used all their SMs,
even a Tuvalu Block II could only take 2 or so SMs without taking 2
thresholds (assuming no PDS - in fact, about 3 is needed).

There are plenty of examples of ships from various navies having as good
or better firing arcs. Just compare like with like when it comes to
costs. And remember that every OU ship has good firing arcs. Whereas,
say, a reasonable mix of Tacomas, Hurons, Furious, Vandenburg-Ts have
some ships with excellent dogfighting ability, and some that are Hell On
Wheels in the forward arc, but not so good SA and PA. Similarly with NSL
and ESU.

So I'm talking Fleets rather than individual ships.

> >  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.
> 
> This is exactly the same problem as Phalons with all Pulsers tuned to
"C"
> suffer, too <g>

The OU would LOVE to get its hands on Pulsar-Cs. The problem they have
at the moment is too many systems to repair, they'd like to be able to
consolidate.
 
> >I also had a look at hulls that might well be made in a hurry
post-2085. I
> >can see refitted Snakes and Numbats coming off the production line
with
> >screens removed and 360-arc Class 2s fitted, just to deal with the
KV.
> 
> Why don't they just build anti-KV beam modules, with 2xB2-6 + 2xB1-6
(or
> 1xB1-6 + 1xPDS)? That'd make the Rivers and Tuvalus quite respectable
> anti-KV units too... and it'd be a LOT faster than refitting the
> non-modular parts of the hulls.

They'd be doing that too. Probably with 2xB2-6 and 2xPDS though. And the
mod -screen+B2/6 mod wouldn't be done on existing hulls, it would be on
new construction only - Snake Block II and Numbat Block II.

> Finally, should the Waikato cost 312? I get the NPV to 314 (ie. 322,
less 8
> for the not-installed structure of the module).

Hmmm. I've already looked at this twice, but if OO says the maths are
wrong, then I'll go through it again, expecting to find an error.

TMF 102-8 * 3 = 282
+ 18 for the 2 Hangers
+ 5 for the beams and pds
+ 4 for the 2 FCs
+ 5 for the screen

314 it is. *SIGH*

Many thanks. Next time I'll find my spreadsheet rather than attempting
to do it from memory.