Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval

-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Burger <blurdesign@gmail.com>
>> I am not entirely sure that FT models WWI naval battles very well.
>> The dreadnought era has too many really big guns with huge arcs and
FT
>> lacks a mechanism for modelling plunging fire.  It is really suited
>> for predreadnought naval battles.  The vessels even had similar
>> designs to FT ships-- some big guns for long range plinking, some
>> medium guns for when the range closes, and a light battery to fend
off
>> torpedo boats.  Even better, most of the guns only fired in two, or
>> three arcs.

>And just like dreadnaughts would munch pre-dreads, a more specialized
>all-big-gun ship is going to be bad news for the "take one of
>everything" designs.

>For examples, see FB1 - the NSL's Maria von B. BB has a *higher* throw
>weight (beam dice rolled) than a Von Teg. SDN, which has to be the
>epitome of the "take one of everything" school of design.

The only range and firing arc where the BB has more beam dice than the
SDN is nose-on at the 36" range band.  The BB has a pulse torpedo
against the SDN's salvo missile launcher and fighter group, and the BB's
thrust rating is 2, just like the SDN's, so the odds are pretty good
that the SDN is going to land the bulk of its salvos and fighter strikes
without needing to expend additional fighter endurance keeping them in
the right place.  If the fighters simply refrain from firing unless the
missiles are also bearing down on a particular target, it's a pretty
dicey question as to who gets the point defense attention.  For the cost
of two BBs you can give the SDN's fighter bay a torpedo bomber squadron
and still have enough budget left over to add a Waldburg-M to toss
another SML into the fray.  Frankly I'd say I like the SDN's chances in
that fight -- one of the BBs will probably already be gone by the time
they can press any kind of beam advantage range, and probably won't have
even knocked off the SDN's armor in return for it.

However, by and large I tend to agree with you anyway -- the FB1's
dreadnought class ships are effective if they're held to small squadron
actions of only a few ships per side, but they're very poor when they're
put into larger fleet actions, where their fighter and/or missile
armament is completely useless against either a true carrier fleet _or_
an all-guns fleet with integrated area defenses.  FB1 ships are also
pretty imbalanced in terms of being able to defend themselves against
true carrier fleets as well -- very few of them have area defenses
(which in any custom design fleet battle are vital) and their PDS is
pretty weak even as it is.  If they really wanted to model any era's
battlewagons, they should be putting their beams on enough arcs to
simulate a true turret system so that you didn't necessarily care which
way the enemy was coming from and they still could throw as many dice on
a broadside as they could nose-on.  Those ships wouldn't even need to
roll (and if you want to model anything like real naval combat with
these, rolling obviously has to go away).

My own preferences for fleet tactics usually involved a front line of
large SDNs with plasma armaments and heavier fighter elements, together
with lighter carriers that stayed well to the rear; the light carriers
rarely carried much weaponry and usually carried either regular or heavy
fighters, while the SDNs up front carried primarily torpedo bombers. 
Synchronize the bomber strikes with the plasma, and if you had good
point defenses of your own (scatterguns or area defense) there wasn't
really a whole lot that this mix couldn't beat.

E

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l