Re: [GZG] Battlecruisers

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 12/24/06, Ryan
Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I suspect with the modular nature of current ship
> construction and future space ship construction,
> BC's would be more possible because you could
> leave off an armor layer or two and other
> protection in lieu of more engine mass to get
> that speed. Less armor also means more speed for
> the same structural hull size. The extra turn of
> speed and the need in the FT world for patrolling
> systems, quick transits to get out to other
> systems and for acting as fire brigades for
> problems would give them some advantages over
> slower thrust 4 BBs and DNs.

Actually, whether you could really do that is a matter of how much
acceleration is one thrust point, or if the mass set aside to produce
thrust
is purely engines or engines plus beefing up the structure to handle the
stress.  If each point of thrust is one g, then upping the acceleration
from
4 to 6 is more than just bolting on half again as many engines.  Of
course,
the rules seem to imply that all hulls are built to handle thrust 8
(possibly 10), whether they need to or not, as the rules make no mention
of
higher thrust hulls costing more than pokey lower thrust hulls.

Answering another of your posts, once your likely enemy also has BC's,
sending DD's and/or CL's to scout for the enemy's fleet becomes
prohibitively expensive, or impossible if your light units have other
uses,
like looking screening your battleline from enemy subs (one of the
reasons
that prevented a Jutland rematch was the feeling that the RN did not
have
enough DD's for a proper anti-sub screen).

The RN BC's fared poorly at Jutland not so much because they were tucked
into the battleline, but because they were scouting for the High Seas
Fleet
and the visibility was bad enough that they were under the HSF's guns
when
they actually found them.