Id not worry too much about the damage threshold. Were not really grouping bays and comparing threshold values in a strict mechanical sense. Mount whatever feels appropriate and go on.
Agreed to some degree on standarization - Ive tried to go with one laser, one PPC, and one NAC. That said, Im not sure a mixed armament is -bad-. Sure, youve got no single ideal engagement range - but that means you just identify your opponents and stay out of -their- ideal engagement range. Wont make up for the difference if youve substantially less armament - 2 NAC 30s is strictly worse than 4HNPPC at -any- ranfe (barring high speed engagement) - but figuring the ideal range is always about expected damage and opponent expected damage in any rangeband.
Interesting redesign - I imagine your feeling the same pain I am with Tyr - repeat build/refit low SI ships cause youve already got the design, or pay for RnD (and increased upgrade costs in the future!) on a whole new hull.
By my math, if you refit all your CAs, you can lay 6 more THIS turn... (refitting that many will tie up two yards all turn, leaving you 6). On the following turns, you can crank 10 a round, budget allowing.
FLEET STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
[/size]
I figured out the per-fleet throw weight and other considerations. Treated missiles as half value (this likely radically OVERVALUES missiles, even at half). Treat AC/2 as both 2 points of AAA, and 1/2 of a machine gun for PDS.
Did not count small craft or pay note to weapon ranges. Builds for FWL and FS are Projected (assumes FWL refits as above and builds 4 more Heracles 2, Assumes 4x Crucis BB build for FS)
TOTAL FLEET ARMOR/RESILIENCE (Standard Armor, Kilotons)
FS: 24.5
LC: 16.6
FWL: 15.7
CC: 14.5
DC: 14.1
Notes: FS is a surprise winner here. High SI from day 1 and little damage to their fleet after a history of easy, lopsided victories keeps fleet strength up.
TOTAL FLEET FIREPOWER: (Capital Damage, Thousands)
FS: 18.5
FWL: 16.7
DC: 14.8
LC: 14.5
CC: 9.8
Notes: FS, again - lack of combat losses, coupled with a focus on damage efficient short range autocannon, make them the winners here, again.
AAA/PDS Fits (Standard Damage in Thousands/MG or MG Equivalents)
LC: 71.6/6.5
DC: 15.2/2.5
FWL: 9.1/5
CC: 5.5/1.4
FS: 5.3/1.3
Given that the DC Outfitting fared reasonably well at Vega, the DC fit is probably 'about right'. FWL is similar, with much lighter AAA, but nearly double the PDS. CC and FS share no borders with a major carrier users, so their outfit makes sense. LC is massively over invested in PDS/AAA, but (given results at Vega), should anticipate nigh total immunity to fighters and missiles.
Fighters: (Naval Carriage in thousands)
LC: 6.5
CC: 3.7
DC: 2
FWL: 2.1
FS: .9
Interestingly, both the 'weak powers' (defined as having stronger neighbors on both borders) went heavy into fighters. Based on the results of Vega, this is likely an error - but weaker naval powers engaging in radical approaches in the hope of making up their disadvantage, and then being beaten soundly when that radical approach fails, is a story as old as naval history.
Dropship Carriage:
FS: 67
DC: 34
FWL: 25
CC: 2
LC: 0
Originally percieved as an over-costed luxury item, the phenomenal success of dropships beyond anything that their armor, their armament, their carriage, or physics would have predicted proves that the luxury budget navies were wise to profligately waste cash on those luxuries.
OVERALL CONCLUSION:
Geography is ALMOST Destiny. DC fared much more poorly than expected, probably based on heavy losses last turn.
FS looks better than expected - likely because they have focused on 'winner' technologies (NACs, Speed, SI) and
ignored 'loser' technologies (Fighters, Missiles, Cargo). Having a solid budget and no real naval losses does not hurt.
FWL still strong, but suffering from having so much of its tonnage tied up in low-SI designs. Its heavy cargo focus
hurts it on the numbers, but presents a large invasion threat, even if that tonnage is not divided up into vehicle bays.
LC and CC face similar problems, have attempted similar solutions, and have yet to profit thereby.
