Re: [FT] Even more NAC ships

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

>Vandenburg/AT: Legal, but I've never managed to understand why the RN
is
>still so fond of putting single-arc P-torps on thrust-4 tubs - this
made a
>lot of sense when the main threat consisted of the old-style thrust-2
ESU
>capitals, but there aren't many of those left in the 2190s!

 I would like to think that by the 2190s either the RN has managed
 to build a P-Torp turrent or they've bought them from the NSL
 despite NIH syndrome. But I'd also expect that Core/Defence get
 priority on the new gear. For the moment single arc P-Torps are
 characteristic of NAC ships, so I kept them.

>Vandenburg/M: Completely wasted against the KV IME (the probability of
>hitting with the SMs is too low to make them useful for reducing the
KVs'
>scattergun loads), but could be very useful against Phalons -
particularly
>if the missile launch is combined with a close-range beam/torp attack.
(If
>you can force the Phalons to use their Pulser-Cs for point defence
work,
>they can't fire them at your ships... and if they hold them back to
fire at
>your ships, they tend to get rather badly hurt by the missiles before
they
>can fire.)

 I didn't claim the missile tactic against the Kra'Vak actually
 worked, only that they tried it :-) And they're not bad at
 cracking big ESU ships.

>Renown: If this was intended as an anti-Kra'Vak ship I kinda doubt its
>success rate - unless it gets lucky on its first attack run it is too
>clumsy to bring its P-torps and B3s to bear on the enemy.

 The P-torps, yes. That's why only two were built, the Van/HK
 is just as good.

>Excalibur/M: Jack of all trades, master of none. Single-arc P-torps on
a
>thrust-4 ship again :-/

 See note above about Core/Defence getting the good stuff first.

 Thanks for the feedback.

	Hugh