Re: OUDF design Qs

Alan Brain wrote:

> >> 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.

OK. This might be a good time to point out that the Tuvalu Block II is
the 
widest-arced of all the BORON ships when fitted with beam modules, while

the Vandenburgs (both variants), Voroshilev, Markgraf and Furious
designs 
are five of the ten narrowest-arced designs in FB1 (the other five being

the ESU BC, BB and SDN, plus the SMP-armed strike variants of the Falke
and 
Lenov scouts).

IOW, these playtests don't really say anything about how the *other*
BORON 
ships (which have narrower arcs than the Tuvalu Block IIs) compare to
the 
*other* about sixty FB1 designs (which have wider arcs than the ten 
narrowest designs).

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

Compare a Numbat/Gunpack with the Radetzky, or give it a P-torp module 
(like the Numbat on the Example page) and compare it to a Beijing.
Compare 
a River/Standard with a Volga or Tibet, a River/SMR with a Trieste, or a

Snake with a Novgorod or Tacoma. Compare a Spider with anything you like
- 
the closest equivalent is the Tacoma/T variant, but the Tacoma/T has a 
couple of B1s.

In these comparisons, the BORON ships look average or even narrow-arced 
compared to the FB1 ships.

>The FSE is equally good as the OU when it comes to firing arcs,but has 
>half the hull boxes.

<snort> So the BORON ships all use 60% of their Mass for hull boxes,
then? 
They'd have to, in order to have twice as many hull boxes as the FSE.

The FSE match the Numbats and frigates in hull boxes on an equal-cost 
basis, and have about 75% the hull boxes of the Rivers and Tuvalus. What

they *do* have half as much of is beam batteries, but those missiles of 
theirs might even the odds out a bit if they're lucky <g>

>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.

Ahem. A bit further down you wrote:

>So I'm talking Fleets rather than individual ships.

The only way to simultaneously talk about fleets *and* compare like 
cost/size with like is if you force ships of similar size to pair off 
against one another and ignore the rest of the battle. I don't think
that 
that's what you intended.

>And remember that every OU ship has good firing arcs.

In that case you're saying that a Spider, Snake or Numbat, or just about

any BORON ship carrying an SMR or P-torp module, is *not* an OU ship.
None 
of these have particularly good firing arcs, after all. Even the
Standard 
module can't give the Numbat significantly wider firing arcs than FB1 
mainstream, and a Numbat/P-torp is about as narrow-arced as the NAC
Furious 
arc-wise (more maneuverable, but even less of its firepower covering the

rear 180).

Heck, even a Tuvalu Block 1 with twin Gunpack modules falls in the
middle 
of the FB1 range arc-wise - though when it comes to packing lots of 
firepower into a small hull it is of course quite exceptional <g> The
other 
Tuvalu beam outfits, and the River/Standard, are quite wide-arced - but 
they're the widest the OU gets. Everything else is narrower.

>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.

A reasonable mix consisting exclusively of Rivers and Tuvalus with
Standard 
or Defence modules will indeed be "unusually wide-arced" compared to the

above NAC force. That is very true.

However, once you mix in some Numbats or Snakes (or Spiders!) in the
BORON 
force, or you put SMR or P-torp modules on some of the ships (even on 
Tuvalus or Rivers) - then all of a sudden the BORON force has firing
arcs 
which are quite similar to those of the NAC fleet.

> >>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.

Build a module with six B1s. That's pretty much the same thing as an 
all-arc Pulser-C <shrug>

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry