How Important Are SRW To LRW Designs?

[SCC]

OK playing around with starting designs, using Fa and Ra, and putting together a destroyer to carry 3 Ra after putting in every else I need I find that there's only room for one Mg, which I feel might not be enough, my options are:
[list=]
[*]Keep things as they are
[*]Swap out the Fa for a third Ra and a second Mg
[*]Switch to using La for my SRW and put in a La and Mg
[/list]

[Lomn]

Generally, Ra x3 + Fa (17 HS) is going to leave you light on passive defenses, and the Fa is going to be ballast unless you're at SRW range where that fragility is going to be apparent quickly. As such, I'd consider that even the magazine space you have now (which is enough for 30 full volleys) is excessive. If you want to pack along the Fa, I'd drop the Mg to Mgs + Hs (18 volleys, +1 HTK). If you switch to La, I'd do the same and consider using the saved HS on S or A. Even if you take the Ra x4 approach, I'd still consider the Mgs only (still 16 volleys), but run a sample combat and see if your DDs are likely to be able to hold the range against something and/or require that many rounds to conclude a combat. Under no circumstances would I run two full Mg on a unit like this; at most, Mg + Mgs + Hs (which is 31 volleys for Ra x4).

I'd also consider doing DD LRW platforms as a mix of the pure-LRW and the LRW+SRW designs rather than just using one single class.

[SCC]

For passive defenses I've put in the suggested about of 13% in A and S combined, to wit 2 of each, are you saying that's not enough? If so it so look kinda of light.

[Whitecold]

A bit more passives can't hurt. The next two passive techs give a massive improvement in effectiveness (50%, resp. 33%) so the 13% can well be low with 1st gen passives.
If you go build some ships with combined Fa+Ra, you might consider building a few with all the HS from the Fa replaced by passives and mixing those in to confuse the enemy, as from the LRW fire he won't be able to differentiate.

[PracticalM]

I don't generally put SRW on a LRW ship. DDs at the start are the LRW platform so I keep CTs with SRW and DDs with LRW.

Sometimes I roll on the NPR design table if I want to shake it up. But then I tried started with G as my starting SRW weapon (don't do it) because sometimes you have to do odd things.

[SDTroll]

But then I tried started with G as my starting SRW weapon (don't do it) because sometimes you have to do odd things.

What is bad about starting with G? I have read multiple times it is, but don't get to play so I've never found out why.

[Cralis]

But then I tried started with G as my starting SRW weapon (don't do it) because sometimes you have to do odd things.

What is bad about starting with G? I have read multiple times it is, but don't get to play so I've never found out why.

The primary "problem" with G is that it doesn't have very good to-hits over it's already short range. It's great for close-in WP defenses, but like Pg, suffers (by comparison to other SRW) pretty much everywhere else. And it doesn't have any skipping.

But it does pack a whallop and it's great for bombardment. Especially Gc and Gh. But player's play styles generally work better with the other types of SRW; thus the reason players give the warning.

[Whitecold]

G is also the only SRW that is subject to intercepts. If you want to have a very short damage dealer, you can pick Pg, though you need to open up Pt for that, meaning it is your second SRW option anyway.

[procyon]

For passive defenses I've put in the suggested about of 13% in A and S combined, to wit 2 of each, are you saying that's not enough?

It is pretty close to what my players look at for a starting DD-Ra x4. They usually have 4-5 HS in passives at the start of the game.

And they almost never mix SRW and LRW in a design. It just means that in a LRW fight you are at a disadvantage against a pure LRW design, and in a SRW fight you are at a very big disadvantage against a pure SRW design. And unless you have a huge speed advantage (not likely early game with a DD), you aren't going to be able to force an opponent into a range he doesn't want to be at.

[SCC]

I've been giving this some more thought recently and am leaning towards the following changes:

• Switch the Mg out for Mgs and Hs
• Drop the SRW
• Put in two extra S
• One extra A
• Xa
• And one Ia

That last will give it some cushioning against losing an engine room when operating at speed 3 for prolonged periods.

On a related note, what is the exact ruling for speeds with a half speed (Like FG) operating half a speed higher for long periods? For example if I gave a FG 4 Ia could it operate at speed 3 on the strategic scale without problems? Technically it's tactical speed is 5.5, and half of that is 2.75, which rounds up (2.5 on the other hand does not)