Reported 8.2.98

Fleet Design Guidelines by Nationality

 
Back to ^TheFull Thrust Ship Registry

Exerpt from the FTGZG Mailing List:
>Hey all,
> Does anyone have a specific "characteristic" listing for the various
>planetary organizations?
> Like what weapons are favored by who....Does NAC use more needle
>beams? NSL use more torps...etc?
>
> I know a fleet book is on the way (called Geohex today and he said at
>least two more months...) but what about in the interim? Is there any
>agreed upon standards?
>
>Thanks
>Joe

OK, here we go: these are some VERY rough outlines that I posted to the playtesters a short while ago for comments, so I may as well release them to the wider audience. They will form the core of the fleet design doctrines in the Fleet Book. Note that nothing which follows is yet confirmed, and anything MAY get changed between now and publication of the FB!

Some of the systems mentioned are new ones that will be detailed in the FB (and later in FTIII): HBS is Heavy Beam System (which will be a variant of the one used in the EFSB), while SMB is Salvo Missile Battery (a completely new (to FT, that is) type of missile system). Armour will also use a new system (similar to additional damage boxes) rather than the "Kra'Vak" style armour rules in MT.

1) NAC: Mainly general-purpose ships, using a broad mix of weapons and systems - beams, torps and SMBs. HBSs are frequently used on heavier classes. Some designs are be specialised, but most are multi-role. Strong screens are the primary passive defence, though some armour is employed especially on the heavier units. Mobility is generally average-to-good. Fighters are normally based on specialised carriers which rely on supporting ships for much of their defence.

2) ESU: Most ships are beam-heavy in their armament, with a sprinkling of SMBs on some classes. HBSs and torps are used relatively little. Armour and screen use is fairly balanced, many ships carrying both. Mobility is average for most ships. Fighters are operated from specialised carriers; these ships generally have more offensive armament and tougher defences than NAC counterparts, but carry correspondingly fewer fighters. Many ESU ship designs, especially the Cruiser and small Capital types, are optimised for long-term independant operations.

3) NSL: Another beam-heavy force, using few SMBs or Torps, but HBSs are common where mass allows. NSL doctrine is for powerful ships in offence and defence, with mobility a lower priority - thrust levels tend to be low. Armour is used heavily, often in preference to screens. Fighters tend to be based in smallish quantities on the large general combat ships rather than specific carrier designs.

4) FSE: SMBs are used extensively (with good magazine capacities where mass is available), with beam weapons seen as secondary systems. Some specialised Torp-armed classes exist. FSE ships are relatively fragile, with a lower priority on defences than (say) the NSL, but this is partly offset by the fact that their large capital ships are VERY big. As with the ESU, fighter carriers are seen as multi-role ships and carry other offensive systems besides their fighter complement. Mobility is a priority, with most classes having good thrust levels.

Jon Tuffley (GZG)

We know the OUDF produces some Stargrunt vehicles under licence from the FSE (from Owen's orbat) so they would probably source the basic escort hulls from the same source (repeat business). The few cruiser's the OUDF use would likely be custom built at home, predominately as support ships (ADAF & missiles/SMBs would fit this role). The largest military ship they possess would be a battlecruiser or escort carrier, to use as a flagship, possible with a single HBS for punch. Given their penchant for reliability, & that the OU fleet is more geared towards police actions, the weapon fits would be more like the ESU, to reduce maintainance & ammunition costs. I can't wait for the FT:FB to find out how SMBs will work.

ROBERTSON,Brendan

Subject: FTFB--new fleet design philosophies.
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 23:46:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John Atkinson)
Reply-To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

    It occours to me that with the changes brought about by the Fleet
Book that there are now innumerable 'styles' of ship that one could
concentrate on.  We can go the NSL route and go for armor, beams, and
no speed, or the FSE which is dead opposite (BTW, Why, oh why did GZG
make the FSE models so darn cool?  It's annoying--I won't play
Frenchmen but I really, really like the ships).

But has much thought been given as to what would be wanted if one had
the luxury to specialize _within_ one's fleet?  I'm assuming multiple
capital ship construction yards and a good bit of resources.  Let us
examine major areas of concern for the de-centralized space fleets:

Home Fleet:  This would represent the main 'fleet' per se, the
battleline and carriers.  Major striking arm, built from ground up with
fleet battles in mind, not independant operations.  Primary focus is on
Dreadnought classes and Fleet Carriers, with escorts as appropriate.
Escorts will be designed for anti-fighter and capital ship strike
mission--speed is not too essential, given that they are tied to the
battleline anyway.  May include independant destroyer and cruiser
squadrons for scouting.  Missle armament would be a good idea given
that this force is not really into long-range, long-term missions with
no logistical support, as might be more common out on the frontier.

Commerce raiding:  May be administratively part of above or of frontier
fleets, but has different enough requirements.  Two major elements:
"True" battlecruisers (BBs with the armor and shields stripped in favor
of engines:  The NAC BB minus armor and shields yields a BB-armed
thrust 6 ship with reasonable survivability vs escorts) and smaller
escort-sized armed with needle batteries and possibly operated
off-the-books by privateers under letters of marque and reprisal.  Both
may, in time of war, hunt down enemy replenishment ships, and
battlecruisers may bushwhack destroyers or small cruiser forces.
Speed, lightning speed, more lightning speed are the watchwords here.
Also since their opponents are not likely to be heavily shielded (DDs
and FFs), beam batteries are ideal, while missles would be right out
given their mission profiles.

Local Defense forces:  I'm thinking mostly smaller ships, with low
thrust (Come on, they're defending a planet.  Just where would they
go?), lots of survivability and weapons.  They won't stop a battleline
in any case, so focus on smacking raiders and probing attacks.
Possibly supplement with a few high-thrust ships for patroling system
as a whole vs commerce raiders.

Local Fleets:  sub-sections of the empire may maintain smaller fleets,
especially on frontiers.  Few battleline ships, if any--and what they
have will likely be CVL/BB/Light BB (former BC size, since I'm using
Battlecruiser to designate a stripped and faster BB).  Ideally the
scarce large capital ships will be something like the NSL
'Carriernaught' (four fighter groups and battleship beam armament)--
flexibility is watchword.  Heavy emphasis on cruisers, which would be
used in small squadrons or singly in most cases.  Destroyer squadrons
would also be useful, especially for hunting comerce raiders.
Destroyer squadrons should be designed as an integrated whole rather
than accumulation of individuals.

Convoy Escorts:  No missles, likely predominately small ships (12
frigates can be split among 6 convoys, 1 SDN has to be in one place).
Some maneuverability is needed, say about thrust 4, but you don't
really need thrust 6--you're tied to thrust 2 freighters anyway.  Beam
batteries, some torps for dealing with capital raiders.  Since these
are small forces, fighters may be disproportionately effective--CVEs
built on Lt BB hulls seem to be ideal.

John M. Atkinson

Subject: Re: FTFB--new fleet design philosophies.
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:53:21 -0800
From: mehawk@internetcds.com (Michael Sandy)
Reply-To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Organization: We don't need no stinking org!
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

>     It occours to me that with the changes brought about by the Fleet
> Book that there are now innumerable 'styles' of ship that one could
> concentrate on.  We can go the NSL route and go for armor, beams, and
> no speed, or the FSE which is dead opposite (BTW, Why, oh why did GZG
> make the FSE models so darn cool?  It's annoying--I won't play
> Frenchmen but I really, really like the ships).

I'd like to see some task specific fleets posted,
For example:

Commerce Raider force:
10-20 Scoutships spread in a web to find enemy shipping
Scoutship (SML bait)  Mass 5, Thrust 8, FTL, Level-1 Electronics
(I thought I read that level-1 only uses 1 Mass)
By using the electronics to alter size they can appear to
be 17-64 Mass combatants.
plus:
1 Heavy Raider, Thrust 6+, high electronics for stealth, <20%
between Armor and Structure.  It needs an extremely advantageous
range band to make up for the expense of its huge engines and
stealth systems.
Armament mix strategies:
Parthian:  Bat 4's mounted exclusively on one side.  Designed
to maintain range against an enemy convoy without giving up
firing opportunities.  Works especially well if you can
cripple their drives first.
Fast Carrier:  Scouts find enemy shipping, then the fighter
groups hit it while the Carrier stay well out of range.
Pocket Battleship:  Instead of trying to stay out of range of
the enemy escorts the pocket battleship just closes and blows
the hell out of them.  Good scouting is essential to prevent
the battleship from getting damaged far from home.  A significant
portion of its defenses will be armor in order to delay a
threshold check that could strand it.

Another specialized ship, for those familiar with David
Weber's Honor Harrington series:
Tepes Class State Security Battlecruisers.

These are multirole ships decidedly _not_ optimized for fleet to
fleet combat.  The Peeps used them as weapons of terror to keep
both their populace and navy personnel in line.  In a sense they
are really just glorified troop transports, but as the favorite
tool of an intelligence service they probably have a few neat
knick-knacks aboard.

In addition to interface craft for landing troops, a fighter bay
for covert ground attacks would be a good asset.  Or even specialized
fighter groups that carry troops for boarding.

They carry huge electronics suites for eavesdropping, especially
against their own ships.  They should have a much higher effective
electronics ratings against their own nation's naval forces.

Multirole ships might make good exploration vessels.  Imagine a
series of naval simulations designed to build a multirole craft,
they want a ship or squadron that can handle any problem (that
does not actually involve going to war with a major power) on
their own:

1)  Stopping smugglers
2)  Monitoring the planet surface
3)  Monitoring local space
4)  Stopping insurrections
5)  Transporting emergency supplies, or extremely valuable
cargo securely
6)  Authorized for First Contact protocols
7)  Maintaining quarantine and/or customs
8)  Stepping in on the squabbles of local corporate space fleets
ie, prevent corporations from dropping rocks on their rival's
space ports
9)  Chasing enemy intelligence scouts out of the system
10) Not getting destroyed or captured by enemy Q-ship tactics
11) Rescuing damaged ships in system, or at least their crews
12) Long duration, multi-encounter patrols

Because a significant amount of mass and points are going to be
committed to troops, cargo area and specialized systems they
are not going to be as combat effective as a ship designed on
equal points for the express purpose of beating equal sized
enemy ships.

Lets see:
100 Mass Ship, 40 Mass Engine, 10 Mass Structure, 10 mass Armor,
9 Mass Fighter Bay, 9 Mass Interface bay, 4 Mass Electronics,
1 Launch Control, 10 Mass Cargo and Troops, 6 Bat-1, 1 Fire Con

A brief note on firing arcs for fleet designers:
A lot depends on who is going to be determining the engagement
angle.  Convoy escorts are going to travelling from A to B
and especially for the first hit are going to be hit at an
inconvenient angle.  For these ships it really pays to have
180 or 360 arc weapons.  They may forgo the longer ranged
narrower arc weapons on the theory that a force big enough
to do crippling damage at long range is going to wipe them
out anyway.

For ships which are designed to meet an enemy fleet a lot depends
on the average closing speed whether reducing one's firepower
in exchange for better arcs is worthwhile.  Is it worth a 33%
percent loss of firepower to go from 180 Bat2 to 360 Bat2s?

Michael Sandy

Oceanic Union ship design philosophy is located at:

http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/ft/oufleet.htm