ship design encyclopedia

[rincewind]

I updated the designs. I had a problem with the Pta ships and passive defenses. Pta is just so big that i had to scrap any designs that were under a destroyer. Ihaven't even started the campaign yet. When your 14 years old you don't get a lot of time to do games and reading.

Raven consortium ships
Hunter class CT 16 HS/16 TS
[2] SSSAAAAH(Ia)Qa(Ia)(Ia)La [6/3]
Trg: 1 Def: 0 Cost:186/27.9
SL 1 13 HTK Sx3 Ax4 Lax1 Hx1

Hawk class DD 30 HS/ 30 TS
[3] SSAAAAHQa(Ia)Qa(Ia)(Ia)Pta(Ia)YaMg(Ia)Pta [3/1]
Trg: 1 Def: 0 Cost: 412/61.8
SL1 15 HTK Sx2 Ax4 Hx1 Ptax2 40 plasma torpedos

Sparrow class DD 30 HS/30 TS
[3] SSSSAAAAAH(Ia)M1(Ia)(Ia)Qa(Ia)LaLaQa(Ia)La [5/2]
Trg: 2 Def: 0 Cost: 395/59.3
SL 1 20 HTK Sx4 Ax5 Hx1 Lax3

Crow class CL 45 HS/ 45 TS
[3] SSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAHQa(Ia)MgMgPta(IaIa)M1Qa(IaIa)PtaQaYa(Ia)Pta [4/2]
Trg: 2 Def: 0 Cost: 576/86.4
SL1 31 HTK Sx8 Ax9 Hx1 3xPta 50 plasma torpedos

Scout class CT 30 HS/30 TS
[3] SSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAH(Ia)(Ia)Qa(Ia)(Ia)XaQa(Ia)La [5/2]
Trg: 1 Def: 0 Cost: 276/41.4
SL 1 28 HTK Sx7 Ax10 Hx1 Lax1

[Cralis]

I updated the designs. I had a problem with the Pta ships and passive defenses. Pta is just so big that i had to scrap any designs that were under a destroyer. Ihaven't even started the campaign yet. When your 14 years old you don't get a lot of time to do games and reading.

Time: that is something that doesn't change no matter how old you are

But Pt is one of the harder LRW to use. A lot of people just look at it and give up. I find Pt to be a lot of fun though.

[rincewind]

I Looked at the damage value and saw that in pratically evrey case, it out did R in terms of damage and range. Plus Once i devolop Plasma guns my short range fire power increases drastically.

The Scout class destroyer i made is meant for warp point exploration, but i also threw in the Ya because with it's speed and heavy passive defenses, it also makes a decent recon boat.

[wievil]

XO loadout is ReM-ECM1 x2 and GBa x2

Didn't think you could do that with squadrons. Good idea though if you can.

By XO.02 "XO Racks can only carry smcft for 10 minutes before the DFs radiation kills the smcft's crew." the crew would be dead 10 minutes after leaving space dock. With the provision to supply crew replacements in Qv on the ship and the immediate availability to replace DP losses on active squadrons from one strike to the next, I don't think this does more than skirt the spirit of the rule. If I were the SM I think I'd allow it if those extra GBa were only used to makeup losses, and compliment the player on their ingenuity.

Wievil

EDIT
On second thought putting / recovering a couple of squadrons of replacement small craft in external racks would probably have to be handled by the cargo handling rules the same as reloading external launchers do. It can be done but you're drive field down for the duration. Not something that really lends itself to continuous combat operations.

[wievil]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nest - class DDfb 35 HS/25 TS
[4] (8 empty HS)HQa(Bga)(Bla)(Bga)(Ib)(Ib)(Ib)(Ib)(Ib)Qb(Ib) [6/3]
Trg:1 PV=29 Cost= 580/87 SL6 {ULTRA}
13 HTK Hx1 (Bga)x2 (Bla)x1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**WARNING** Design flaw alert! (IMHO)

Ok, it's a pet peeve and I admit it. Why oh why does this arrangement "(Bga)(BLa)(Bga)" make sense? Any time a launch system is placed to the left of the bays that it services you're risking not having access to launch the contents of the bays. Who cares? Well consider this arrangement, "(BLa)(Bga)(Bfa)(Bga)(Bfa)(Bga)(Bfa)(Bga)(Bfa)(BLa)". After one internal damage point the launch capacity has been halved. Putting that first launch bay here "(Bga)(Bfa)(Bga)(Bfa)(BLa)..." while maybe not as symmetrically pleasing to the eye, this arrangement will increase the CV's ability to sustain small craft operations at full capacity when damaged IMHO.

Wievil

[Club]

I wouldn't put the Blx further forward than as the second-to-last bay. If the Blx is trashed, you might be able to get it back through emergency repairs. If the Bgx is trashed, any squadron inside is just gone. Also, you might be able to disembark the squadron through the cargo handling rules to another carrier, basically cutting a hole through the hull or something, if your SM is nice.

It's not a major consideration for this ship, and YMMV. I agree that up to a certain point (Blx)s should be deeper in the ship than Bgx. And solar might invalidate my logic, as squadrons can land in Blx even if there are no squadron bays to transfer to. (It can't launch again, but at least it's alive)

I agree that a 8-squadron ship should be designed your way, and I do design my larger carriers that with Blx fairly deep into the bays. This isn't a large carrier. I didn't do that layout for symmetry.

(squad)(squad)(squad)(squad)(squad)(squad)(launch)(squad)(Launch)(squad)

is how I would do a 8-squadron carrier with two launch bays. The disadvantage here is that a capital primary beam might take out both launch bays, so I might put the first launch bay a bit further forward, but not by much.

[wievil]

Fleet Carrier Britannica (AM1) 18XOb BBbf/109HS
[3] S1 x17 A2 x16 Zb Ht Qa Mgt Qe Qe (Ib Ib Ib) (Ib Ib Ib) (BLa) (Bga) (Bfa) (Bga) (Bfa) Qe Dcza (Bga) (Bfa) (Bga) (Bfa) (BLa) Qv Qv Qv Qv H Ye ?a Qe (Ib Ib Ib) (Ib Ib Ib) [4]
(Dcza x1 / ?a / Ye )

hmmm..... ShipYard says the turn mode on this ship is [4]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Carrier Britannica-class BBfb AM1 18-XOb 109 HS/76 TS
[4] S1x17A2x16ZbHtQaMgtQeQe(IbIbIb)(IbIbIb)(BLa)(Bga)(Bfa)(Bga)(Bfa)QeDcza
(Bga)(Bfa)(Bga)(Bfa)(BLa)Qvx4HYe?aQe(IbIbIb)(IbIbIb) [4/2]
Trg:1 Def-1 PV=128 Cost= 2311/346.7 SL8 {ULTRA}
71 HTK S1x17 A2x16 Dczax1 ?ax1 Hx1 Qvx4 (Bfa)x4 (Bga)x4 (BLa)x2 Yex1 Zbx1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DDE Rose , Lily 5XOb DDb/35HS
[3] S1 x6 A2 x12 Zb Hs Mgs Qa Re (Ib) (Ib) (Ib) Dcza Dcza Ye ?a Qb (Ib) (Ib) [5] gig
(Re x1 / Dcza x2 / ?a / Ye ) ReM-ECM1 x25 , ReM-AFM x19

These DDb also have a turn mode of [4]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose, Lily-class DDb 5-XOb 33 HS/28 TS
2 Space(s) Small.
[4] S1x6A2x12ZbHsMgsQaRe(Ib)(Ib)(Ib)DczaDczaYe?aQb(Ib)(Ib) [5/2.5]
Trg:1 Def-1 PV=37 Cost= 661/99.2 SL8 {ULTRA}
33 HTK S1x6 A2x12 Dczax2 ?ax1 Rex1 Yex1 Zbx1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and as can be seen is 2 Space(s) Small.

Have these been correctly transcribed?

Wievil

[procyon]

Fleet Carrier Britannica

ShipYard says the turn mode on this ship is [4]

DDE Rose , Lily

These DDb also have a turn mode of [4]

Somewhere in the many posts in all of these threads are the house rules concerning this one. Not sure if I addressed it in this thread or not.
You will find that our TM/SPD don't always figure exactly as Ultra would have them. We have used an old EC rule for a long time as it was far easier for the wife and kids (and me actually) to use when designing ships. In a nutshell it goes like this.

When using gen hulls, if you use an engine as the same gen as the hull the ship retains the same TM/SPD as the standard 'a' gen hull/engine combo. So a 'b' hull BB using Ib has a TM of 4 and max speed of 3. So for us the Brittanica as a BBfb with Ib and AM1 has a TM of 3 and SPD of 4. Hence her current stats. Same for the LIly and most of the rest of the ships in the fleet.
If you use an engine one gen less than the hull, you keep the standard TM but reduce max SPD by one. If you use an engine one gen higher than the hull you increase TM and SPD by one.
So a DDb using Ia has TM of 3 and max SPD of 4.
The DDb with Ib has TM of 3 and max SPD of 5.
And the DDb with Ie has TM of 4 and max SPD of 6.
We like it because (at least as we see it) it gives you more options. Want a bigger ship with standard speed. Up your engine tech. Want that same ship as an escort to larger and slower ships, you can downgrade you engine tech. Need it faster but less manueverable, increase the engine tech. And no fractions.

This made it much easier for my kids (some of whom weren't even teenagers when they started designing ships) to figure out their designs without resorting to a calculator and fighting over the one set of hard copy rules we had. It also makes it much easier on me.

Have these been correctly transcribed?

Probably not. Sorry.
I have tried to put out a bunch of the designs from our campaign during my free time at work (which is the only time I have internet access without visiting my mother...), so if that is the only typo I would be amazed. If you see an error or have a question let me know and I will see if I can help. I don't have the ship designs for the New Empires Camp with me tonight. I will try to bring it tomorrow night and see if I can get a chance to check it over.

[procyon]

Rose, Lily-class DDb 5-XOb 33 HS/28 TS
2 Space(s) Small.
[4] S1x6A2x12ZbHsMgsQaRe(Ib)(Ib)(Ib)DczaDczaYe?aQb(Ib)(Ib) [5/2.5]
Trg:1 Def-1 PV=37 Cost= 661/99.2 SL8 {ULTRA}
33 HTK S1x6 A2x12 Dczax2 ?ax1 Rex1 Yex1 Zbx1

I think, IIRC, it was probably S1x9. But I will have to check to make sure. I likely hit one number low on the keypad when putting in the multiple for the shields.

[procyon]

I think, IIRC, it was probably S1x9.

It is S1x9. I will fix it in the original post.
But the design has already seen an upgrade since that post - so it is no longer accurate anyway. At least for about half of them in service.