Re: OUDF design Qs

...or "Oh no, here he goes again" <g>

Alan Brain wrote:

 >First, my thanks to OO for his very useful comments. He's put a lot of
 >work into not just picking nits

...which is why it took me so long to write this reply - I spent the
whole
weekend dancing instead :-)

 >Anyway, on with the motley.
 >
 >>The CLs OTOH have quite wide firing arcs, comparable to or wider than
 >>BORON ships with Gunpack modules, and so is the NSL medium. The 
ESU >>medium cruisers (Beijings and Gorshkovs) are narrower, but not
very 
far behind.
 >
 >I don't have FB1 to hand at the moment, so am working off unreliable
 >memory.
 >But let's try and find comparisons with a River class with Gunpack for
 >example. These are 40 mass.
 >Reasonable comparative designs would be:
 >
 >NSL - Kronprinz Wilhelm CL
 >FSE - Trieste (very close indeed)
 >ESU - Tibet CL
 >NAC - Huron CL
 >
 >Note that apert from the Trieste, all are significantly larger, and
 >classed as Light Cruisers rather than (Super)Destroyers.

Since I have FB1 handy, I'd like to add two more ships to the
comparison:

ESU - Volga superdestroyer
FSE - San Miguel destroyer

At TMF 34, they're about as much smaller than the River as the River is
smaller than the three CLs - ie., they and the CLs bracket the River.

 >It's not stated in the OUDF page, but the OU uses Rivers in the
Destroyer
 >role (ie in flotillas like Triestes) as well as light cruiser role 
(individual
 >ships or as close escorts in fleet action like Kpz Wilhelm) out of 
neccessity,

OK. Makes it even more appropriate to compare the Rivers against FB1
DDs/DDHs as well as against CLs.

 >In every case, either the River is significantly cheaper ( being
 >significantly smaller) with equal- or slightly-superior- toughness in
 >terms of hull + armour,
 >OR it has better firing arcs,
 >OR it has more firepower at short range, *while retaining equality in
all
 >other respects*.

In three of your four cases, none of the above options is really true
(the 
River is significantly cheaper than the CLs, but it isn't as tough - you

can't ignore the effects of screens, extra FCSs and better hull/armour 
layout when comparing the toughness of different designs), and in the 
fourth case I probably wouldn't say that the River/GP and the Trieste
are 
"equal in all other respects" than close-range
firepower <g>

In the two cases I added the River is more expensive and much tougher,
and
either [has narrower firing arcs] OR [has more firepower at close range
but
is significantly slower].

(In all the above cases the River/GP also has weaker point defences than
the
FB1 ships - not a problem if supported by ships with Defence modules or
if
there are no enemy missiles or fighters nearby, of course.)

When I see the term "wide firing arcs", I understand it to mean "how
big a fraction of the direct-fire firepower of the strongest (usually
(F))
arc is available in the other arcs". If you mean something else by the
term,
please let me know - in that case we're probably talking about different
things entirely!

Putting the "arcy-ness" of the various ships discussed in this thread
into a
table, I get:

					 % of F-arc short-range
		 Short-range		 firepower available in...
Ship		Firepower in F arc	FP/FS	AP/AS	(A)
Vandenburg/T	"15"			47%	20%	(7%)
Vandenburg	8			75%	38%	(13%)
Markgraf,
Voroshilev	12			83%	33%	(17%)
Tuvalu BII/GP	11			81%	45%	(27%)
Furious 	"11"			27%	27%	(9%)
Beijing/B,
Gorshkov	9			77%	44%	(22%)
Radetzky,
Numbat/GP	10			80%	40%	(20%)
Tibet, Volga,
Jerez		8			75%	75%	(50%)
River/GP, Huron,
Krprz W 	8			75%	50%	(25%)
San Miguel	6			67%	67%	(33%)
(and the other FB1 DDs too)
Trieste 	3			100%	33%	(33%)

(Firepower values in quotation marks include P-torps. The missiles on
the
Gorshkov and the Trieste have not been included, since missiles are
restricted by firing arcs in quite different ways than direct-fire
weaponry.
The (A) arc values are in parantheses since you normally can't fire
through
that arc.)

As you can see above, the River/GP has very standard firing arcs for FB1
ships in the TMF 30-50 range - the only FB1 ship in this Mass range
which 
does *not* have similar beam arcs is the Trieste. (The River/Standard
would 
have wider firing arcs than normal in that Mass range, out-arced only by

the Volga and Tibet,
but according to the web page descriptions that configuration is quite
rare.)

The Tuvalu BII/GP has unusually wide arcs *for a TMF 80 FB1 CH* - but
when
compared to FB1 ships in the TMF 55-70 range, any differences in firing
arcs
are pretty much negligible. Unless, of course, you only compare it with
the 
*extremely* narrow-arced Furious - but it is the Furious which has
unusual 
arcs compared to the other FB1 ships, not the Tuvalu BII/GP.

All of this is just a way to try to explain why I, when I tried the
BORONs
in battle a year or so ago, didn't find them to be "unusually
wide-arced"
but instead very much "standard-arced" and therefore wondered a lot
about
your wide-arc claims :-/

 >>>You might note that in the "numbers in service", the Tuvalus
outnumber the
 >>>Numbats quite significantly - they're the mainstay of the fleet.
 >>
 >>Sure. But 40% of the Tuvalus (ie., the Block Is) are "usually" used
as
 >>"self-escorting troop transports" etc., whereas the only Numbats
mentioned
 >>as non-combat units are the two VIP transports. 17 Tuvalu Block IIs
don't
 >>seem to outnumber the 15 non-VIP Numbats all that significantly...
 >
 >A lot of the Numbats have Raider modules for use in defended areas,
their
 >speed gives them protection. More are used for high-value cargoes. The
 >remainder are "Chasseurs", designated to pursue commerce raiders,
pirates,
 >and FSE ships.

OK. This is a bit difficult to read between the lines though, since
neither
the Numbat description, nor the main OU doctrine text, nor the examples
mention any non-combat modules other than the two VIPs for the OU
Numbats -
in distinct contrast to the Rivers and Tuvalu Block Is (which are
explicitly
described as being used for civilian tasks and/or raider missions), but 
similar to the Tuvalu Block IIs (which are explicitly described as being

dedicated combat
vessels).

 >>Alan, here you're just pulling figures out of thin air - you didn't
even
 >>get the hull strength of your own Tuvalu Block II right :-(
 >
 >Comes from operating without either FB1 or even my OUDF page in front
of
 >me.

OK. Explains quite a few of your statements :-/

 >>The Tuvalu Block II has 40% percent hull (not 50%)

Side note: The Tuvalu Block II description calls the hull integrity
"Very
Strong" (ie., 50%). 32 hull boxes is only 40% of its Mass, ie. "Strong".

 >>and three armour. That
 >>gives it 32 hull and 3 armour, for a total of 35 damage points.
 >>
 >>The FSE CH, the Jerez, is TMF 88 (which is usually considered to be
*more*
 >>than 81, not less), and has 26 hull boxes. Last time I checked, 35
was not
 >>"something like twice the number" of 26; in fact 26 is almost exactly
75%
 >>of 35 - which was the percentage I gave in my previous post.
 >
 >Fair enough. For something like twice, read something like 150%. Yes,
I
 >know that in this case its 133%, but in other cases 150% is
understated.

Certainly. 150% is understated if you compare absolute hull strengths
with
those of smaller ships (ie. "River vs Jeanne d'Arc", but with the BORONs

playing Jeanne's part), or if you look at a per-Mass basis and compare
the 
BORONs with NAC carriers and various small escorts (frigates and
smaller, 
for which rounding
effects become significant).

 >I also think you agree with much of what I say, just
 >won't let me get away with over-generalising. For which I thank you,
it
 >keeps me on my mettle.

I won't let you get away with over-generalising when doing so results in
you
making false statements, no :-/

 >Once you take out the Freemantles for patrol duties, the Snakes for
 >chasing down pirates, a Tuvalu or 2 for exploration, Numbats for
ferrying
 >round covert forces, the OU peacetime fleet is pretty stretched. In
 >wartime, maybe 70% of the Freemantles would become Rivers and get
 >transferred to the main fleet, The Snakes would be supplemented by
Spiders
 >unless there were some Big Targets around, the Tuvalus would come back
 >home, and Numbats would stop junketing and get on with independent
raids.
 >And all those Scientific Research stations would get a visit every 6
 >months instead of weekly.

OK. This should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page

 >>There are about as many non-VIP Numbats (15 active, 2 in reserve) as
there
 >>are Tuvalu Block IIs (17 active, 1 in reserve) - there's no mention
on the
 >>page of the non-VIP Numbats being used as Raiders or non-combat
units.
 >
 >No there isn't. The OU categorically denies having any covert ops
 >capability.

...except, of course, for the OUDFS Wanganui and the Raider-equipped
*Rivers* (eg. OUPS Sepik), both of which are featured on the BORON
examples
page...

 >Oerjan, I know it's a dirty trick to spring on you, but please believe
me
 >when I say that I'm not using a despicable trick to "win" an argument.

I believe you. It's just that the OU pages currently don't give a
complete 
enough picture to let another player use the BORON ships with
"doctrinally 
correct" fleet mixes.

 >Please read between the lines.

Easy to say, hard to do. Particularly when you combine the wrong lines
to
read between...

 >Some things you have to deduce. Now there's bound to be many things I
 >haven't thought through, or have made mistakes in numbers with, or
have
 >just gotten plain wrong. But other things a reader has to infer from
 >what's NOT said. And some things I want to leave deliberately
ambiguous so
 >different players can have their own fleets, some basically civilian
with
 >a thin military venire, others wolves in sheep's clothing.

In which case players who use them in ways different from yours, with
different force mixes - not to mention *against* different force mixes!
- 
will get
results which are very different from those you have seen, and therefore
won't agree with your assessment of the BORON designs. Just like I
did...

 >"It was found early on in the Lee-Lu Type 459's service that due to
the
 >usual beureaucratic stuff-ups, a virtually unarmed Patrol Vessel would
be
 >sent to do a Destroyer's job, or a Destroyer would be told off to
chase a
 >smuggler that it couldn't catch. In 2168 then, the OU decided that
Type
 >459s without modules would be known as the Freemantle class, those
with
 >modules the River class. So a single hull could belong to either at
any
 >particular time." -- Unpublished manuscript, Cdr Tam Nguyen,
OUDN(Retd)

Sounds good :-)

 >>>Spiders are used when the opponent could have an SDN or
Super-Carrier
 >>>with Screen-2s, and otherwise don't appear.
 >>
 >>OK. That means that they're only ever fielded against ESU, since
they're
 >>the only FB fleet which uses level-2 screens (IIRC your gaming group
don't
 >>use non-FB ships other than the OU?).
 >
 >NAC Carriers & Star Bases too. Remember that the OUDF tactics are
 >particularly vulnerable to level-2 screened ships, especially ones
with
 >lots of fighters.

Yes... though sending the Spiders to take out an NAC carrier seems to be
a
pretty certain way of losing one Spider for every NAC fighter squadron,
though - unless OU fighters neutralize the NAC fighters (in which case
you
could pretty much ignore the carrier) or you send in some ships with
Defence
modules to escort the Spiders on their attack run.

 >>>True. They do have this option. The background though states that
the
 >>>P-torp modules were unsuccessful,
 >>
 >>No, it doesn't. It states that it was an interim measure before the
Spiders
 >>were built, but it says nothing about whether or not the modules were
 >>successful - and I've seen far too many solutions that were intended
as
 >>interim measures but which turned out successful and were made
permanent
 >>to automatically assume that "interim" equals "unsuccessful".
 >
 >Fair enough. But try using them in battle, and you'll see what I mean.

I have tried very similar ships in battle, but I'm still not sure what
you're referring to here. It could be either of...

- the Spiders get one extra point of *acceleration*, but no better
*turning
ability* than the Numbats (unfortunately turn ability, not acceleration,
is
the important thing for aiming single-arc weapons), OR

- the Spiders are far easier to destroy than the Numbats, so in spite of
the
fact that you get more than twice as many P-torps for your points by
buying
Spiders you usually don't get any more close-range torp shots since the
Spiders have already been destroyed or crippled when it is their turn to
fire.

Or were you thinking of something else? :-)

 >>>and only go for things like Komarovs which have class-2 screens,
 >>
 >>It says that this is what the Spiders were *designed* for, not that
this is
 >>the *only* thing they do. Considering how badly stretched the OUDF
is, I'd
 >>be very surprised indeed if they didn't use Spiders against ships
with mere
 >>level-1 screens on occasion.
 >
 >a) If the OUDF had more of em, maybe it could afford to squander them
on
 >other targets. As it is, there's barely enough.
 >b) No Battle Plan ever survives contact with the enemy. There have
been
 >times when they've been used in an emergency.

b) is exactly what I was referring to above. In the previous post you
wrote
"only go for things like Komarovs which have class-2 screens" - what do
they
do if the enemy was expected to bring ships with level-2 screens (so the
OUDF fielded the Spiders) but turn out not to have any? Do they break
off
immediately, or do they fight? I would expect them to fight :-/

 >>>But by my standards, the NAC doesn't use SMs, and the fleet tactics
 >>>against them wouldn't take massed SM fire into account.
 >>
 >>The NAC has more SML-armed units listed than the NSL has... a year or
two
 >>back you said something to the effect "IMO the NSL is the best
SM-armed
 >>fleet in FB1" <shrug>
 >
 >Using atypical fleets, yes. Try to find an FB1 force with more SMs
than
 >one consisting of nothing but Waldberg-Ms.

That's easy. A fleet consisting of nothing but FSE Athena/Ms ;-)
(Marginally
more missiles, but all of them launched at the same time instead of
spread
over two turns - and a better thrust rating to help them bug out
afterwards,
since the Athena/Ms don't have any *other* weapons apart from the
missiles...)

 >Of course there are what, 10 Waldberg-Ms in the whole NSL
Kriegsraumflotte?

26 Waldburg/Ms in 2183, compared to 59 standard Waldburgs.

 >>The problem with this scenario is that if you take a threshold at 4+,
that
 >>was your third threshold.
 >
 >Or your first, where you've just taken 2 rows of damage in one hit.

True.

 >>IME, for the first two thresholds the B1s give you a considerably
better
 >>chance of having *most* of your firepower operable when you get into
range
 >>than the Pulser does - especially when the ship has as few DCPs as
the
 >>BORONs have.

And also when a ship only has a single FCS, like the River. The FCS tend
to 
have absolute DCP priority on such ships

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

oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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