(AU) Build a treaty compliant navy!

[Lagrange]

Added the Outworld's Alliance as well as my understanding of the counts and costs for each ship.

I think the LCN overspending on a navy is fairly reasonable :)

W.r.t. thrust 3/5 lock-in, the screen launcher might change the equation somewhat since you can approach to short range without taking fire.  This makes a 4/6 design with short range / high power weapons potentially a viable alternative.

Another variation on the "standard" broadside approach is using a nose mounted weapon (as per the Anvil), which I'm a bit enchanted with at the moment.  Having twice as many weapons and a worse critical table may be worth the drawback of giving the enemy a bonus of 1 to hit. 

[marcussmythe]

Added the Outworld's Alliance as well as my understanding of the counts and costs for each ship.

I think the LCN overspending on a navy is fairly reasonable :)

W.r.t. thrust 3/5 lock-in, the screen launcher might change the equation somewhat since you can approach to short range without taking fire.  This makes a 4/6 design with short range / high power weapons potentially a viable alternative.

Another variation on the "standard" broadside approach is using a nose mounted weapon (as per the Anvil), which I'm a bit enchanted with at the moment.  Having twice as many weapons and a worse critical table may be worth the drawback of giving the enemy a bonus of 1 to hit.

I would go so far to say that screen launchers would effectively render any non-point-blank strategy near trivial, though Id have to push minis around a table, with custom designs, to be sure. 

Now, this is largely a false artifact of our game system - in ‘real’ space, with both sides maneuvering in 3 dimensions and moving through all intervening space rather than ‘teleporting’ point to point (such that one cannot simply worry about being covered at the end of each move), I doubt the perfect walls of impenetrable terrain would be a thing.  Certainly a more detailed movement system (phased, perhaps) would largely cure this, while still giving them some value.

NacNose/Lasertail likely dominates.  You essentially double your firepower, and largely double your armor, at the price of pointing your bad critical chances at the opponent.  Given that sort of firepower and resilience advantage, I dont believe that the criticals will matter, inasmuch as the other side is dead.  Fleet engagements will make this effect stronger, due to the tendency of ships to be hard killed in single exchanges (though this too is an artifact of our turn based tabletop game)

Im not sure how to cure that, if needful, though if I did my temptation would be to further increase the accuracy advantage of engaging a nose or tail on target aspect target - one cannot as effectively apply delta-v (and generate misses!) with manuvering thrusters as one can with main drive (it is my default assumption that all ships are to some degree drunk-walking at all times, else ‘missing’ wouldnt be a thing, espc with lasers fired at kilometer long targets)

[Lagrange]

I would go so far to say that screen launchers would effectively render any non-point-blank strategy near trivial, though Id have to push minis around a table, with custom designs, to be sure. 

It's a little tricky.  Assume the 'slow' design is half armor/half weapons load and consider the next faster design having the same armor.  Then:
A 4/6 loses ~3/10ths of it's weapons load to close on a 3/5.
A 5/8 loses ~2/5ths of it's weapons load to close on a 4/6.
A 6/9 loses ~1/2 of it's weapons load to close on a 5/8.
A 7/11 loses >2/3 of it's weapons load to close on a 6/9.

Given that capital weapons deliver only about x2 damage close in, you can't really manage with a mixture of only close-attack warships because someone could design warships with the same tonnage/speed and keep the range.

NacNose/Lasertail likely dominates. 

The fire control becomes an issue at battleship scales, particularly with Naval C3.  If a navy committed to only such designs, then they might have some vulnerability to a (more) maneuverable extreme range opponent.

[truetanker]

I gained more ground and had alot slower navy when I ran the Marian Hegemony in the old Warship Race. I kept my pace of conquest by not overstretching my resources.

Now back to the topic: I say the faster the unit is, the lesser amount of firepower on target. If you're going to intercept someone, make sure it's at your advantage, not theirs.

TT

[Hellraiser]

W.r.t. thrust 3/5 lock-in, the screen launcher might change the equation somewhat since you can approach to short range without taking fire.  This makes a 4/6 design with short range / high power weapons potentially a viable alternative.

The FC Navy being very 4/6 & SI heavy made for some challenges since I handicapped myself into not being able to make a Baby-McKenna/Black Lion type ship.

The Mjolnir is big but it could have had so much more space for guns if it was say 105 SI w/ 3 Thrust rate.

Even the "Slow" Fox has 100 SI & I didn't want to change any of the basic WS frames for this project.

Just weapons, armor, dropship collars, & Crew/Cargo/Craft.


That said, I noticed quite a few errors in my ships, something about Save's not taking & pasting the wrong versions, and not having the crew rules for this program understood.

I'm made some added tweaks & changed some weapons too.

The new versions are in the same thread where the old ones were if you want to check them out.

[Lagrange]

I updated the high level descriptors here. 

Just checking: the Avalon II and Avalon III are supposed to have identical weapons loadouts, right?

[Hellraiser]

Yes, originally they didn't but when I was fixing everything else I just decided to match them up.   

Which means the Cruiser lost some firepower from my first post, but being 4/6 & 120 SI was always going to leave these FC ships short on either Firepower or Cargo.

So in my rebuilds I was trying to balance out some of their anemic cargo holds while streamlining what firepower they did have into sensible bays.