Re: Fixing salvo missiles

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Replying to several posts at once here:
> 
> Jared Hilal wrote: 
>  >There is only 1 FB ship that has any SMRs, and it is a variant
>  >described in text only, no SSD.  There are no SM-armed MTB/PT/PCG
>  >designs at all.
> 
> The following three FB1 ships use SMRs:
> 
> ESU Gorshkov-class Heavy Cruiser (standard variant, SMRs shown on
> SSD)
> FSE San Miguel/M-class missile destroyer (described in text only)
> FSE Athena/M-class missile corvette (described in text only)
> 

<flip, flip, flip>
Someone else beat you to the punch on the Gorshkov :)
I missed the Athena, yasure, youbetcha.

> How small would a ship have to be in order to qualify as an
> "MTB/PT/PCG" craft, BTW?
> 

I wouldn't put a TMF figure on it, just a description.	SMR Athena is a
good MTB/PT, and SMR San Miguel kind of on the top end of a PT/PCG. 
Gorshkov is more of a CAG (not even CG) due to size, speed, and
significant other armament.

>  >I understand the cost difference, I just don't know how much weight
>  >you give to the "logistical slice" in figuring PV.

<snip explanation>

Thank you for explaining the "logistical slice" computation.  This
helps me.

>  >I would say that the above SMMs should stay the same MASS, and
>  >alter their capacity rating accordingly. All of the FB designs are
>  >light on ammunition IMO, especially if viewed in terms of ships
>  >actually operating on cruises, rather than built for one-off games.
> 
> How many battles do you expect a ship to fight on each cruise, before
> returning to base for repairs and resupply?
> 

Since a lot of the backgroud in the GZG setting involve ships on solo
or squadron cruises, they probably are either going to be bored or
fight several engagements, low probability of just 1 battle IMO.

J