Re: [FT] IJN Designs?

From: "Jaime Tiampo" <fugu@spikyfishthing.com>

> Alan E Brain wrote:
>
> > Correct, it's 2 when in a rack. 1 from a (3-mass) launcher.
>
> Wouldn't mass 2 launcher make more sense? 4 mass for 2 missiles in
> either a rack or launcher, then you have a mass savings from the third
> missile on.

The launchers are the same ones as for SMs - much like a Mk12 launcher
can
fire Standards or Harpoons (or ASROCs IIRC).
There is also a fear that having 1-mass missiles of any description will
be unbalancing. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

> > "EMP" - EMP warhead, endurance 1 (causes an additional threshold on
(3+Scr) or above, plus 1 pt, so an EMP vs SCR-2 target needs a 5+. 3
EMPs
affecting a ship in one turn would cause a single 4+ threshold if it was
undamaged, a 3+ if it had lost 1 row etc)
>
> Is this different then the MT book? EMP missiles there have 3
endurance.

Yes. The MT missiles described above MAY repeat MAY be the version in
FT3.
Or FB3
if that comes out first. Only Jon can say, and he isn't. Saying, that
is.

> > In summary: make em more fragile, add some more beams and maybe
screens
with the saved weight. Standardise on armour = 1 row of hull ( so 16
hull ->
4 armour).
>
> How about 20% hull, 10% armour? that's just my personal preference :)

Would make em toast in the hands of the KV. The estimable Oerjan thinks
that even 20/5 is too much armour, but as in my experience the K-1 does
as much as the rest put together, I disagree. But I play cinematic.

> > A SuperDread with 4 Beam-4s, and thrust-4 so it can keep em bearing,
> > that's scary. It may or may not be effective, but like
Yamato/Musashi,
it's
> > terrifying.
>
> Spinal mount baby. :) I'm still of the mind of huge beams backed with
> swarms of missiles.

Yes, keep the range long. Remember those "Long Lance"s may only do 1D6,
but
they can really reach out and touch someone, with a range of 90" - or
72"
if they choose their targets and burn the last move.