the dugan, what I was getting at is that ultra-high-damage, expendable weapons (hideously over-costly, innefficient, overkill against most fleets) are the logical, in-system solution for 20 Hull, Screens (so we can keep our 5 shield rating forever, natch), Armor-Plated ships that (we assume) also use the damage control optional rules (to ensure that not only does the ship take -forever- to kill, but that it remains at near full combat effectiveness the entire time).

Several optional rules are necessary to build such a ship.  You need screens.  You need range 30 weapons.  You need 2+ Weapons.  You need Damage Control.

When one plays with some, but not all, of the optional rules, and when one plays with optional rules that serve your purpose and not with those that run counter to it, one should not be suprised when one gets ships that do EXACTLY what you want them to do.

Judging from the optional rules they use in their games, its obvious that (at least Beowulf) is going for a WW1 Jutland-style line-of-battle massive range and resilience under fire.  The optional rules chosen support that style of play, and his ship designs take full advantage of it.  So theyll be really hard to beat unless you build 'just like that, only more' ships, or unless you allow things that dont fit the assumption those ships are built under.  (Among other things, anti-ship missiles that are capable of threatening those ships the way that anti-ship torpedos once threatened the WW1 Jutland Battleline...  but evidently we want to simulate WW1 Jutland without those pesky destroyers, the threat of whose torpedos made Jellicoe turn off  )

And if you house rule some things out, while using others, the warranty on game balance may break down a little.

Agreed on 'not huge issue'

I think it comes down to how we value variability.  IE, is a weapon that does 1-9 worth more, or less, than a weapon that always does 5 damage?

See, it seemed back when I read continuing damage that the authors intent was 'extra good at knocking out systems'... whereas the current implementation amounts to 'each damage dice is exactly 1 hull damage (same as 2 usual damage dice) and potentially either very little or quite a lot of system damage'

Another question, now that were talking about system damage in general..

Is it just me, or is 'no hull damage' valued at .7 based on the assumption that Damage Control rules are not in effect?  Without DC in effect, it looks cool.  With Damage control...  I like the flavor, but it doesn't seem justifiable.

Dan... the thing is, though continuing may never score more than one hull hit, it may also never score less than one hull it.

As the typical die scores 1/2 of a hull hit, and as (as was discussed before) the sum of the series for continuing damage is 2...

1 'continuing damage' die scores the same damage as 2 'normal' dice, and its hull damage is strictly regularized.. rather than 0-2 damage (normal dice condition), its always 1 damage per continuing damage die.

Now, whether variable or consistent damage is preferable is up to you. *G*

Another option...  This is kind of interesting, its turned into a thought problem, a 'how do we deal with xyz'

1.)  Higher speed, equally long range weapons, and stealth.  Tacky, yes, but any fleet that obliterates book fleets while taking nominal damage deserves extreme responses.

2.)  Range 30, ROF 2, IMP 3, DMG 5, 3+, Extra Hull Damage, Penetrating, Inverted Range Based Damage.  Ammo=1

On average, 1 hit, 1 penetration, and 20 Hull Damage.  Utterly wasteful against anything but superships, and even at that yould probably break up your ROF and IMP dice onto multiple smaller weapons to even out your probability curve, but you can build a relatively cheap hauler that will clean up a map.

One thing we have to all remember when designing a fleet...  is it fun to play -against-.  'Winning' is fun, but winning all the time results in winning very little, because you have no-one to play against. 

The mechanics of building a fleet that is simultaneously fun, and fun to play against, is probably worthy of its own post, and its not one I feel competent to write... I tend to lean too much to building 'winning' fleets myself, though its something I fight against.

As in 'Bourbaki Basin', a forum wherein ship designs are posted....  its near the bottom of the MJ12 Forums Page.

Id be curious to see your often-discussed fleet up in the 'Basin, Beowulf.  The massive range on your firepower, coupled with large hulls and armor plating must make them... pricey, to say the least.

My anticipation is that having that many points tied up in singular (however tough) hulls would tend to create either a really overwhelmingly good force, or a very vulnerable one.  I also recommend avoiding the damage control rules with ships that big, as they turn into shambling, unkillable zombies.  Damage Control and Regen really 'balance' best on smaller ships, IMHO.

Then again, were all engineers here.  After paying appropriate lip service to balance and flavor, the temptation to run the numbers and make all the best decisions is.. often overwhelming.

Thousands of Suns... burning.   

Georgeous pictures, Warlock.

I think, if I find spare time/CPU cycles, I may try to 'review' a few more navies.. either Basin ones, or ones from the setting material.

Jimbeau, I understand completely!  No criticism, overt or covert, was intended.

Thing is, this CAN be the place for that.. also reviews of Basin ships by other players... give everyone a chance to weigh in with their 'what we thing of this and that' sort of stuff.

Im in the process of converting a fairly large and fluffed-out SMX navy into Admiralty.. once I'm done, I'll have it up, with attendant fluff, etc.

And, suiting action to words, my review/response/unsolicited commentary on the Eurasian Empire:

Overall impression:  Solid, suited to multiple tasks.  I like the nearly uniform fleet speed from a tactical level, as it allows the fleet to function together fairly smoothly (with the exception of the Jian-A, discussed below).  Ditto the consistent shielding levels, as it complicates enemy fire control. (I will tend to shoot less shielded ships first, in any mixed fleet.. the moreso because they tend to also be smaller, faster, and more dangerous in close).

Fleet feels nicely rough, low tech, but elegant within its tech base.  Very Russian.

I also note that you -seem- to be using Frigate in the U.S.S. Constitution sense of the word, rather than the 'smallest ship in the navy, pure escort' modern sense.

Specific Ship Reviews:
Shang-A
Nasty, tough little bugger.  4 shields and 6 hull, for its point value, is rough.  And I dont want to get within range 12 of it... a 50% chance to make 4 impact rolls for 4 damage each as soon as you hit range 12, for 140 points?  Of course, its median damage against itself is only going to be 2.33 at range 12 (.5 hits x (4 impacts at 1/3 each)x4 damage.. but the potential of 16 damage will command respect.

Particle Turrets are obviously anti-fighter weapons, intended to be used at close ranges... (given the 5+)  I rather like the use of scads-o-guns here, as it helps generate that hail of fire feeling.  Also note the low accuracy.

Shang-B:  Im not sure a extra hull point and an extra impact die are worth cutting that 120* field of fire to 60*  I can see the Shang-B in a fire support role, but range 12 is a little short for a pure fire support vessel, and trying to keep a 60* weapon in arc as you get into knife fighting would be tough.  That said, not all ships are pefect, and no navy consists entirely of perfect ships.

Jian-A:  Apparently a refitted Shang-A hull with uprated drives, at the cost of the fleet-battle weapons.  Nasty little knife fighter, but I'm having trouble figuring out its role.  Maybe something like the original 'Torpedo Boat Destroyer', meant to run down and kill off strike boats?  Produces an utter hail of bullets in most directions, but has some serious accuracy issues... beware of foes that mount ECM or go erratic.
Even so, feels higher tech than the rest of the navy.. probably the wide arc weapons.  Newer design?

Kirov:  "Battlecruiser Reporting".   The naming of this a 'Battlecruiser' suggest that there are 5 shield, 3 engine 'Battleships' with similar armament.. but I'm uncertain how the navy uses 'Battlecruiser'  (discussion of the 'Battlecruiser' term, its use, misuse, and misconceptions about the original (flawed, but no so badly as history would tell) concept.. would fill its own thread).  Taken as itself, I like that its as fast as your frigates... indeed, it mostly feels like a frigate writ large, or the bastard child of a Jian-A and Shang-A, given the anti-torpedo-boat Railguns, the anti-fighter Particle Batteries, and the 'please dont point that at my ship' Heavy Anti-Ship Torpedo (which, oddly enough, does less damage over time than the Particle Lance, despite its much, much greater range.. accuracy issues).
Well designed, especially inasmuch as the railguns take over once you get under the minimum range of the torpedos.  With 16 dice at 4+, noone will ever want to be close to you...  and your fast enough to catch them.  Again, I'm a bit concerned about ECM and Evasive Action, but you would be able to close up an Evasive foe pretty quickly, and a total of 48 to-hit+impact dice, even at target 5, is fairly terrifying.

Nanuchka:  Strike boat, I assume, given its stealth?  Yould not want them to roll up in the line with the Frigates, as any foe that could kill these things would.  Their heavily armed for their resilience, so theyll be targeted fast.  That said, I can see the fleet role, just not the fleet battle role (again, due to stealth)

Construction of Fleet:  If those are (as I assume they are) custom jobs, or even kit-bashes, I loathe you with the burning of a thousand suns.  Beautiful ships.

Overall Impressions:  Not alot of ship classes, but that seems to fit the relatively early space war/full thrust tech level feel of the navy.  Interesting designs, with both strengths and weaknesses.  Common speed should allow them to operate together well in battle, but I'm curious how the armament fit will work out.  Should be relatively straightforward though, tactically.. given the long range narrow arc weaponry, point nose at foe and close, firing all the way...

Assuming, for purposes of arguement, that we want to replicate the play feel of SFB...

Photons will need to do roughly the same damage over time as Disruptors.

Disruptors will be more accurate than photons, but have their damage reduced as a function of range.

Photons will have the same damage at all ranges, but have their accuracy sharply impacted by range.

The disruptor boat should want to hold the range open and fire every turn.  The Photon boat should want to hold fire until its got a good shot.  If the photon boat takes a bad shot with its photons, and does not get lucky, the disruptor boat should roll up right on top of it and beat it about the head and shoulders for having empty weapons tubes.

I think were getting there with these proposals.

We may want to fiddle with our Photons and Disruptors to make sure they, in addition to fitting the above, have about the same 'value' points wise.  We may have to be generous to the Photon (compared to its SFB version) because the ability of the 4OL Photon Strike to put all of its damage on one shield (and thus waste less of its firepower over mutliple shields, over mutliple turns, than the disruptor) doesnt translate to this game, and wont be valued by it.

I so terribly envy you having a close group.  I have tried, and failed, to enthuse the local crowd, here.  Cest la vie.