• Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Topic: New British ships

The Royal Navy Ether Squadron, shocked both by the FESR designs and the fact that they don't, really, have good enough ships to fight them, the RNES plans a new set of warships.

Invictus-class dreadnought (246 pts)
Hull: 32
HVP: 4
TR: 4, AV: 4
Primary: 8/d10(x2)*
Secondary: 8/d4(x2)
Light: 12/d4(x1)
Equipment:
*Lightning Projectors
Forward-Only Turrets
4 Mine Factors
10 Hale Rockets
6 Machine Guns
[Hull] [Armour] [Thrust] [Primary] [Secondary] [Light Guns]
[1-12] [13] [14] [15-16] [17-18] [19-20]
Q Hits inflicted on the 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th and 30th hull hits

Achilles-class battlecruiser (137 pts)
Hull: 24
HVP: 3
TR: 5, AV: 3
Primary: 8/d8(x2)*
Secondary: --
Light: 12/d4(x1)
Equipment:
*Lightning Projectors
Forward-Only Turrets
4 Mine Factors
10 Hale Rockets
6 Machine Guns
[Hull] [Armour] [Thrust] [Primary] [Secondary] [Light Guns]
[1-13] [14] [15] [16-17] [--] [18-20]
Q Hits inflicted on the 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th hull hit

Victory-class cruiser (92 pts)
Hull: 15
HVP: 3
TR: 5, AV: 3
Primary: 4/d8(x2)*
Secondary: --
Light: 10/d4(x1)
Equipment:
*Lightning Projectors
Forward-Only Turrets
2 Mine Factors
10 Hale Rockets
5 Machine Guns
[Hull] [Armour] [Thrust] [Primary] [Secondary] [Light Guns]
[1-11] [12] [13-14] [15-16] [--] [17-20]
Q Hits inflicted on the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th hull hits

Hermes-class FAC Carrier (26 pts)
Hull: 15
HVP: 1
TR: 7, AV: 1
Primary: --
Secondary: --
Light: 8/d4(x1)
Equipment:
10 FACs
Gyroscopic Stabiliser
4 Machine Guns
[Hull] [Armour] [Thrust] [Primary] [Secondary] [Light Guns]
[1-14] [--] [15-17] [--] [--] [18-20]
Q Hits inflicted on the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th and 14th hull hit

Castle-class destroyer (14 pts)
Hull: 5
HVP: 1
TR: 8, AV: 0
Primary: 2/d6(x2)*
Secondary: --
Light: --
Torpedoes: 5/d6(x2)
Equipment:
*Lightning Projectors
7 Machine Guns
[Hull]  [Armour]  [Thrust]  [Primary]  [Secondary]  [Light Guns]
[1-10]  [--]  [11-18]  [19-20] [--]  [--]
Q Hits inflicted on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th hull hit

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 379

Re: New British ships

I like 'em. smile   My only concern would again be in any ship carrying more FACs than it could reasonably launch before getting its butt kicked.  The Austrians have a medium ship with nine FACs, and it's been rare that I have had the chance to get them all off -- figuring the 3 per turn allowed to a medium ship.  I think you're going to have the same problem.  But in the games where it does happen, those ships are really useful.

And I think the Brits SHOULD start to use some more lightning projectors in their designs -- so nice.

  • Registered: 2006-05-07
  • Posts: 36

Re: New British ships

Wow.

Got to stay behind these frightening ships!

Pity there's no defense against lightning projectors.

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: New British ships

frigatesfan wrote:

Pity there's no defense against lightning projectors.

Yet.


big_smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-30
  • Posts: 272

Re: New British ships

cricket wrote:
frigatesfan wrote:

Pity there's no defense against lightning projectors.

Yet.


big_smile

Tease, tease.  Besides, there are already several defenses.  Depending on which optional rule you're using, either small size or high speed is helpful, and bulky, expensive LPs are generally suboptimal against swarms of FACs or small ships, especially if the little guys are packing Keel Bombards.  d20s make up for a lot...

Nice designs overall, though I think I agree with the carrier launch rate concerns.  You could just bump the hull size up one to increase the launch rate to four, but you'd have to fiddle with the thrust and armor to maintain performance.

Say, empty FAC cradles *are* legit Q hits, right?  You don't *have* to take  out a loaded one?

Rich

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 379

Re: New British ships

that's kinda cheesin it, though, isn't it?

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: New British ships

themattcurtis wrote:
hundvig wrote:

Say, empty FAC cradles *are* legit Q hits, right?  You don't *have* to take  out a loaded one?

that's kinda cheesin it, though, isn't it?

Perhaps-- but it's "legal" within the rules.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: New British ships

cricket wrote:
frigatesfan wrote:

Pity there's no defense against lightning projectors.

Yet.


big_smile

And does this, ahem, "defence" also work against Martian heat rays? big_smile

  • Registered: 2005-03-30
  • Posts: 272

Re: New British ships

cricket wrote:
themattcurtis wrote:
hundvig wrote:

Say, empty FAC cradles *are* legit Q hits, right?  You don't *have* to take  out a loaded one?

that's kinda cheesin it, though, isn't it?

Perhaps-- but it's "legal" within the rules.

It might also make high-capacity carriers more viable, since they're more likely to get all their birds off.  OTOH, if they're taking Q hits, their hull *is* still getting battered to pieces as they coast along launching...

Rich

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: New British ships

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

And does this, ahem, "defence" also work against Martian heat rays?

Maybe...

smile

Seriously... with "energy weapons" like Heat Rays and LPs, it's inevitable that someone (something?) will devise a shield-like defense.

The question will be whether such a thing will also be useful against projectiles (guns, torps) or need to be in combination with traditional armour...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: New British ships

Rory Hinnen wrote:
cricket wrote:

> > The question will be whether such a thing will also be
> useful against projectiles (guns, torps) or need to be in
> combination with traditional armour...

> I would like to vote in favor of combination.
>
> In fact, I imagine most energy screens would be pretty energy
> intensive. I'd suggest that it has to protect against an area
> that is considerably larger than the hull of the ship
> (assuming that the shield is "projected" from the ship). So
> the energy costs could be very high, and perhaps rise as a
> power function based on hull size.

Well, although the idea has come up, I'm not sure I'm in favor of introducing energy allocation to Iron Stars just yet... *BUT* smile

If we were to consider such a thing, I would start by recommending the SU cost for a shield generator be based on the hull size. As a start, let's say:

HULL^0.555 x 10

For example, a size 3 ship would pay 18 SUs per generator, while a size 30 ship would pay 66.

Why?

Well, the "x10" is in there so that a size 1 ship with normal BAV and BTR can put one on -- and then have no space left for anything else.

As far as the ^0.555, that's due to some computations I've done to determine ship displacement and length...

After analysis of Jane's, I found that (on average) the displacement of a ship is related to its length on a ^0.222 basis; i.e., LENGTH = DISP^0.222/0.17. Since I've been using a ^1.25 exponent to determine displacement from hull points, that means deriving length from hull points requires a ^0.2775 (that's 1.25 x 0.222). Finally, when you've got length, you can determine the surface area of a sphere by squaring it; 0.2775 x 2 = 0.555. (Note that coefficients--like pi--in this exercise are ignored, since they would affect all values linearly...)

Thoughts? Headaches? smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: New British ships

Too much math for this early in the morning yet... :shock:

I'll take your word on it all Dan. *chuckles* wink  Seriously though, the screen equation for cost looks good, but how much protection will each screen provide...or will it be based on energy costs should they ever be actually introduced to IS?

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: New British ships

I *thought* that I had seen something in the early Beta of Iron Stars:

Da Earliest Iron Stars Beta I have... wrote:

Electro-Magnetronic Force Shield: The Electro-Magnetronic Force Shield (EMFS) is an energy barrier that provides additional protection against incoming fire. However, due to its massive energy requirements, the EMFS cannot be used in the same turn as the ship applies any Thrust points. A player may activate the EMFS simply by declaring this intention during the End Phase. When it is activated, the ship receives a +1 bonus to its Armour value; however, the ship must move according to its momentum. Further, the ship cannot make any turns; thus, if a ship has a momentum of 3 and activates its EMFS, it must move straight ahead 3". A ship may only have one EMFS. In ship construction, the EMFS takes up 10 SUs per hull point, and incurs a special modifier of x1.2.

..it didn't make the cut.

From the description, it wouldn't help against Lightning Projectors either....

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: New British ships

cricket wrote:
Rory Hinnen wrote:
cricket wrote:

> > The question will be whether such a thing will also be
> useful against projectiles (guns, torps) or need to be in
> combination with traditional armour...

> I would like to vote in favor of combination.
>
> In fact, I imagine most energy screens would be pretty energy
> intensive. I'd suggest that it has to protect against an area
> that is considerably larger than the hull of the ship
> (assuming that the shield is "projected" from the ship). So
> the energy costs could be very high, and perhaps rise as a
> power function based on hull size.

Well, although the idea has come up, I'm not sure I'm in favor of introducing energy allocation to Iron Stars just yet... *BUT* smile

If we were to consider such a thing, I would start by recommending the SU cost for a shield generator be based on the hull size. As a start, let's say:

HULL^0.555 x 10

For example, a size 3 ship would pay 18 SUs per generator, while a size 30 ship would pay 66.

Why?

Well, the "x10" is in there so that a size 1 ship with normal BAV and BTR can put one on -- and then have no space left for anything else.

As far as the ^0.555, that's due to some computations I've done to determine ship displacement and length...

After analysis of Jane's, I found that (on average) the displacement of a ship is related to its length on a ^0.222 basis; i.e., LENGTH = DISP^0.222/0.17. Since I've been using a ^1.25 exponent to determine displacement from hull points, that means deriving length from hull points requires a ^0.2775 (that's 1.25 x 0.222). Finally, when you've got length, you can determine the surface area of a sphere by squaring it; 0.2775 x 2 = 0.555. (Note that coefficients--like pi--in this exercise are ignored, since they would affect all values linearly...)

Thoughts? Headaches? smile

I'd suggest rounding it down to ^0.5...just to save headaches big_smile