[GZG] Andromeda Ascendant

Brendan,

Here is an SSD for an Andromeda ship:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i148/Dracofunk/Andromeda.jpg

Mark Drake

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
To: <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 3:12 AM
Subject: Gzg-l Digest, Vol 20, Issue 16

> Send Gzg-l mailing list submissions to
> gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gzg-l-owner@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gzg-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1.	Store links to beta test rules	  [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
>      (Robertson, Brendan)
>   2. RE: Re:FullThrustscenarios [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] (Robertson,
Brendan)
>   3. [ft] Another campaign set posted   [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
>      (Robertson, Brendan)
>   4. Re:  Question about comment (Richard Bell)
>   5.	[ft] Andromeda Ascendant    [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
>      (Robertson, Brendan)
>   6. Re:  Question about comment (Mike Hillsgrove)
>   7. Re:  Question about comment (VinsFullThrust@aol.com)
>   8. Re:  Question about comment (John Atkinson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:53:08 +1100
> From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> Subject: [gzg] Store links to beta test rules    [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
> To: "'gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
> Message-ID: <DC98B870617D804CAB60865F339E95C21038DC@amsp02.main.dva>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> I noticed when looking for the beta UNSC rules that the only link to
them 
> is
> from the bottom of the "news" page.
> It could probably use a link in the "rules/downloads" section with the
> phalon beta link (as could all the other "beta" rules links).
> Having to search around for them took a while.
>
>
> Brendan
> 'Neath Southern Skies
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
>
> IMPORTANT
> 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
> 2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information
>   for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
>   please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
> 3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not
>   a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated.
> 4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
> publications
>   and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
> messages.
> 5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe 
> emails
>
>   of this type from DVA.
> 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:02:17 +1100
> From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> Subject: RE: [GZG]Re:FullThrustscenarios [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> To: "'gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
> Message-ID: <DC98B870617D804CAB60865F339E95C21038DD@amsp02.main.dva>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> In case anyone missed it, the website link below needs to be:
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/fthome.htm
>
> When I changed from dialup to adsl, they chopped the link address down
to 
> 8
> characters, so the old site (although still active) doesn't get
updated as
> should eventually be purged.
>
> Brendan
> 'Neath Southern Skies
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
>
>> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of
>> Mark & Staci Drake
>> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 10:40 AM
>> Subject: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust scenarios
>>
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/fthome.htm
>
> IMPORTANT
> 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
> 2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information
>   for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
>   please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
> 3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not
>   a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated.
> 4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
> publications
>   and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
> messages.
> 5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe 
> emails
>
>   of this type from DVA.
> 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:08:50 +1100
> From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> Subject: [gzg][ft] Another campaign set posted   [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
> To: "'gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
> Message-ID: <DC98B870617D804CAB60865F339E95C21038DE@amsp02.main.dva>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Just posted the latest version of the campaign set I was playing with,
if
> anyone wants to comment:
>
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/ft/ftcamp3.htm
>
>
> Brendan
> 'Neath Southern Skies
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
>
> IMPORTANT
> 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
> 2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information
>   for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
>   please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
> 3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not
>   a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated.
> 4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
> publications
>   and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
> messages.
> 5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe 
> emails
>
>   of this type from DVA.
> 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:39:47 -0700
> From: "Richard Bell" <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Question about comment
> To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> Message-ID:
> <a4e0c2eb0612101539n50f22eaexa62f39c35ff8596f@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> The F/A-18 has never flown in hostile skies, so there is no real
> record of air-to-air losses.	It has flown over hostile territory, but
> that is not the same thing.  What it does point out is that we have
> yet to produce a true multi-ability craft, as even an F-15E Strike
> Eagle is a very poor dogfighter when loaded for ground attack; even if
> it does have a full complement of air-to-air missiles.
>
> A fighter that was heavily armored, with long range, equipped with
> heavy anti-ship ordnance and the anti-fighter weapons would be more
> expensive than we can readily imagine.  So far, no one has tried to
> make such an aircraft.
>
>
>
> On 12/10/06, Glenn Wilson <glenn-wilson-1950@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Message: 4 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:29:54 -0800 (PST) From: Charles
Lee
>> Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT]Multi-abilityfightercostings To:
>> gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu Message-ID:
>> <532283.1468.qm@web51313.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset=iso-8859-1  Please look at the cost of the F18 Hornet. It
doesn't
>> carry long range AA Missles of the F14 nor the bomb load of the A6 or

>> even
>> the survivability of the lesser ohf the two. It can't jam radar
without 
>> add
>> on bomb pac loads. The pilots don't win the world contests either as
they
>> are expected to do all jobs with a minimal training and little
practice.
>> What they do well is ..... well fly and die in face of specialized 
>> forces.
>>
>> My reply:
>>
>> I would like to see some numbers on when the F/A-18 has suffered the
kind 
>> of
>> losses suggested here...
>>
>> The F/A-18 is the last choice of the main line USAF/USN fighters 
>> introduced
>> from the 1907's until today in my mind (F16, F15 and then (retired)
F14 
>> for
>> me if I don't consider the F-22 since it still is 'new kid on the
block'
>> status.)  But this plane seems to do adequately in real life if not
the 
>> my
>> personal favorite.  The failure to replace the A6 with a specialised 
>> attack
>> aircraft seems to be driven by economic reasons (training, spare
parts,
>> etc.) pushing doctrine and the F/A-18's ability to deliver the Air to
>> Sea/Mud payloads gives the USN a chance to see if their theories
actually
>> will work in combat.  Assuming the plane is not retired before an 
>> adequate
>> 'test' occurs...
>>
>>
>> Gracias,
>>
>>   Glenn Wilson
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:40:10 +1100
> From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> Subject: [GZG] [ft] Andromeda Ascendant    [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
> To: "'gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
> Message-ID: <DC98B870617D804CAB60865F339E95C21038DF@amsp02.main.dva>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Just thinking about putting together some FTJava scenarios in the 
> Andromeda
> universe and working on ship stats.
> Weaponry seems to be almost purely missile based, so there's two ways
I
> could do it.
> The Magog Point Singularity weapons are easily modelled as K-Guns, but
the
> rest could either be lots of SMLs or modeled using missiles as Beams 
> (which
> means shifting some PDS mass into screens to model the same effects).
>
>
> Andromeda Ascendant (SML based version)
> Mass: 180
> Hull: Average
> FTL: Standard
> Main Drive: 4A
> Armour: 18
> Hits: 54; 18/18/18
> Crew Factor: 9
> [OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO]
> [ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
> [ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
> [ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
> Firecons: 2
> 3 x SML (FP/F/FS)
> Magazine (24): 4 x Std, 2 x ER, 8 x FT3 Heavy Missiles
> 8 x PDS
> ADFC
> Fighter Bay - 6 Fast Fighters
>
>
> Andromeda Ascendant (beam based version)
> Mass: 180
> Hull: Average
> FTL: Standard
> Main Drive: 4A
> Screen-2
> Armour: 18
> Hits: 54; 18/18/18/18
> Crew Factor: 9
> [OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO]
> [ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
> [ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
> [ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
> Firecons: 2
> 4 x Beam-3 (F)
> 2 x Beam-2 (6-arc)
> 3 x PDS
> ADFC
> Fighter Bay - 6 Fast Fighters
>
>
>
> Brendan
> 'Neath Southern Skies
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
>
> IMPORTANT
> 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
> 2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information
>   for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
>   please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
> 3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not
>   a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated.
> 4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
> publications
>   and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
> messages.
> 5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe 
> emails
>
>   of this type from DVA.
> 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:06:11 -0500
> From: Mike Hillsgrove <mikeah@cablespeed.com>
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Question about comment
> To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> Message-ID: <457CA0F3.1020907@cablespeed.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> >>I would like to see some numbers on when the F/A-18 has suffered the
> kind of losses suggested here...
>
> Right now, the F18 is multipurpose, cheap, and the reason that we can
> get away with it is because there does not exist a single Air Force or
> Navy anywhere in the world that plays anywhere in the same league. 
The
> only other nations with any sort of actual blue water navy are on our
> side. Even the Russians only have a brown water navy - and that brown
> color comes from the rust on the hulls. When everyone else has bows
and
> arrows, a Thompson submachine gun makes you a champion!
>
> It also performs well within it's designed parameters.  No airplane
can
> be king at all altitudes, missions, and speeds.
>
> Logic means nothing to military planners.  Money and glitz mean
> everything!  For example, the Air Force has always utterly hated the
> A-10.  Pilots love it.  The Army adores it. The brass hates it beause
> it's cheap, slow, and is designed just to support the army and it's
> mission. It's not an airplane killer!  Who cares that it's tougher
than
> tough and can hang around longer than an obnoxious mother-in-law, and
> kill anything that moves absolutely positively DEAD.	It can - and has
-
> carried more than one pilot home on a single wing.  IT AIN'T FAST and
it
> ISN'T GLAMOUROUS.  The Air Force brass has tried to kill this plane
more
> times than Charlie has tried to get in a can of tuna.  It will be
> replaced by the F-16, that can be shot down with a BB, that needs
speed,
> that can't hang around, and can't fly that low or slow. The Army of
> course will get slagged by "longs" or "shorts", but hey - who cares -
> it's just the army.
>
> What makes the Navy effective with anything you give it is that the
> pilots are trained better. You can give a superior pilot a SPAD 13 and
> he will find a way to win with it. Won't be easy, or as often, but he
> will find a way.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:37:20 EST
> From: VinsFullThrust@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Question about comment
> To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> Message-ID: <bd1.a27bf04.32ae56a0@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> In a message dated 12/10/2006 3:15:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> glenn-wilson-1950@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> Message: 4 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:29:54 -0800 (PST) From:  Charles
Lee
> Subject: Re: [GZG]  [FT]Multi-abilityfightercostings To:
> gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu  Message-ID: 
> <532283.1468.qm@web51313.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Please look at the cost of the F18
Hornet. 
> It
> doesn't carry long range AA Missles of the F14 nor the bomb load of
the A6 
> or
> even the survivability of the lesser ohf the two. It can't jam radar 
> without  add
> on bomb pac loads. The pilots don't win the world contests either as
they
> are expected to do all jobs with a minimal training and little
practice. 
> What
> they do well is ..... well fly and die in face of specialized  forces.
>
> My reply:
>
> I would like to see some numbers on when the	F/A-18 has suffered the
kind 
> of
> losses suggested here...
>
> The F/A-18 is  the last choice of the main line USAF/USN fighters 
> introduced
> from the 1907's  until today in my mind (F16, F15 and then (retired)
F14 
> for
> me if I don't  consider the F-22 since it still is 'new kid on the
block'
> status.)  But  this plane seems to do adequately in real life if not
the 
> my
> personal  favorite.  The failure to replace the A6 with a specialised 
> attack
> aircraft seems to be driven by economic reasons (training, spare
parts, 
> etc.)
> pushing doctrine and the F/A-18's ability to deliver the Air to
Sea/Mud 
> payloads
> gives the USN a chance to see if their theories actually will work in 
> combat.
> Assuming the plane is not retired before an adequate 'test'  occurs...
>
>
> Um, I am not sure where this info comes from. But the F/A-13 Hornet is
the
> top line aircraft prefered by Navy and Marine pilots in the US and its

> allies.
> There is a reason it was choosen as the aircraft for the famed Blue
Angels
> and  it aint because it lacks power, lacks manueverablity...	In
combat it
> reaches speeds in access of 1100mph and carried a max oridnance load
of 
> 1600lbs.
> All this and able to swap from fighter to bomber back to  fighter in
the 
> same
> mission. Care to tell me another aircraft capable of	this function?
>
> Vince J.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
>
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/private/gzg-l/attachments/2006121
0/20d8f524/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:27:54 +0300
> From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Question about comment
> To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> Message-ID:
> <aa9f2ea80612110127u3ac7025fw16334236c4a145ab@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 12/11/06, VinsFullThrust@aol.com <VinsFullThrust@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> load of 1600lbs. All this and able to swap from fighter to bomber
back to
>> fighter in the same mission. Care to tell me another aircraft capable
of
>> this function?
>
> I'm pretty sure you're dead wrong about the performance of the
> aircraft you incorrectly identify as an F/A-13.  Mostly because
> 1600lbs isn't enough to carry ONE bomb of the most commonly used size.
>
> But to address your real point, and it applies to the F-15E as well.
>
> No aircraft can swap from fighter to bomber in the same mission.
>
> A properly designed multi-role aircraft can be a capable attack
> aircraft, OR a capable fighter on any given mission with a given
> ordnance load.
>
> Part of being a capable fighter involves being maneuverable, to set up
> attacks with short range missiles and cannon.  If you are carrying
> enough ordnance to be worth a damn for airstikes, you aren't going to
> be maneuvable compared to a stripped-down just-the-basics
> purpose-built fighter aircraft.
>
> Jettison your bombload so you can dogfight, and you aren't returning
> to an attack mission until you go back to the flight line and get new
> bombs.
>
> All the OTH stuff with medium-range missiles doesn't require any
> particularly special platform, because you're just launching missiles,
> and that can be done off the back of a five ton truck with the right
> electronics package.	Doesn't count.	Naval vessels can launch the
> same missile at the same range with the probability to hit, and that
> doesn't make them "fighters".
>
> Objecting to an aircraft because it cannot be all-singing and
> all-dancing on the same mission is stupid and shows lack of knowledge
> of basic aerodynamics.  Claiming an aircraft can be all-singing and
> all-dancing on the same mission is stupid and shows lack of knowledge
> of basic aerodynamics.
>
> The reason the F-14 was taken out of service, other than age, was
> because the aircraft was basically built around the Phoenix, and the
> Phoenix was built for precisely one mission.	That mission was
> shooting down the massive waves of cruise missiles that the Red Banner
> Northern Fleet's Naval Aviation arm was going to launch at USN
> carriers in the Big War That Never Happened.	Considering the fact
> that most concievable opponents of the USN have perhaps a dozen aging
> Soviet bombers with some creaky second-hand Chinese cruise missiles
> wired to them, the threat just doesn't exist anymore.  No more
> mission, no more hideously expensive single purpose fighter to fly
> that mission.  The most likely cause of USN ship damage in the next 30
> years is going to be some jackass with a speedboat full of ordnance
> wired up to a deadman's switch.  Allahu Akbar and Kablooey!
>
> And even at that, the USN is desperately searching for some relevance
> to modern conflicts, reviving the small boat riverine navy a la the
> PBR years and getting all up into the whole "littoral" thang.  They
> aren't thinking in terms of titanic sea battles or refighting the
> Battle of the Atlantic.  They couldn't get a new expensive fighter
> program through Congress, and besides the Army Chief of Staff (who
> can't afford to replace blown-up tanks) would physically throttle the
> CNO in the middle of a JCS meeting if he suggested trying to get
> Congress to give him a trillion dollars to buy a new fighter.
>
> How in Bob's name did this conversation about modern-day USN aircraft
> get started on the Full Thrust list?	It shows up as a new
> conversation in my mailbox.  Can we go back to star fighters?  That
> conversation was boring, but at least it was on-topic.
>
> I need a beer.
>
> John
> -- 
> "Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
> and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
> --Vita Aureliani
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
> End of Gzg-l Digest, Vol 20, Issue 16
> ************************************* 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l