Prev: IF stats? was: 3-row hull costs | Next: Re: I give up |

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:59:34 +1000

Subject: Re: (FT) beta variable hull rows

```
On the effectiveness of 3-row UN style hulls, I have to
strongly disagree with Glen for ships up to light cruiser
size. I fought a series of solo test battles with UN
light designs against similar NAC and found that the 3
row hull was no advantage at all. A weak regular hull with
an equivalent 'row' of armour, or a screen for a heavy
destroyer, has better resistance at about the same point
cost. Or the regular hull ship with average design will
be bigger with more weaponry which cancels out the extra
couple of hull boxes. (Alien weaponry might be different.)
On battleship and larger designs, I disagree with Glen but
with less confidence than above. I've been slowly putting
together a set of Babylon 5 Shadow designs scaled down to
GZG-verse size. Initially they had regular hulls but when
the UN beta rules came out I switched to 3-row hulls. It
makes them initially harder to threshhold, but boy! are
those hulls expensive.
At equal mass, a 3-row hull ship is superior as would be
expected from the extra points. If you just go to equal
points and don't increase the masses of the regulars, the
3-rowers should win, (eg 5 x 600pt 3-row dreadnaughts vs
6 x 500pt 4-row dreadnaughts) but this is no different
from the standard FT scaling problem of 1 x 500 pt being
superior to 2 x 250. If you have equal points and numbers,
it's even.
My two cents (Aus) worth.
cheers,
Hugh
```

Prev: IF stats? was: 3-row hull costs | Next: Re: I give up |