RTGPete Posted July 10, 2003 Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 (edited) Below is a sample Fleet Order of Battle result. The formatting isn't exactly like you'll see in your .pdf files because some of the spacing gets altered when copying-and-pasting it here, but otherwise it's a real result. Enjoy! ================================================================================ ======== -----FOB (Fleet Order of Battle)----- FOB: 22 ** Imperial Navy Report: Fleet Order of Battle ** Xodianic Horde # 2940 [Lush Green World Encircled By Lizards] 22nd Resupply # 22 [ROE: Q] *Column Attack* (Fleet Tonnage: 440,000) Tankage: 102,600 Fuel Burn: ... A 440 ... B 880 ... C 1,760 ... D 3,960 ... E 7,040 ... F 11,000 ... G 15,840 Cargo Bays: ... 200,000 Troop Berthings: ... 4 ... 84,726 Fuel --------------------[Deploy Location 7] 1 LTT Kimodo (Light Troop Transport - 100,000 tons [each])---------------- Fire Control: Poor .. Maneuverability: Slow .. Sensors: Oblivious .. Shields: Feeble .. Structural Integrity: Sturdy 1,000 Energy Dispersion Armor Coating .... 1,000 Laser CIDS .... 5 Light Sonic Disruptor (Sonic) .... 100 Mk I Force Shield .... 20,000 Titanium Composite Armor --------------------[Deploy Location 7] 2 FAR Iguana (Far Trader - 120,000 tons [each])----------------------------------- Fire Control: Poor .. Maneuverability: Lumbering .. Sensors: Blind .. Shields: Feeble .. Structural Integrity: Average 80 Mk I Force Shield .... 15,200 Titanium Composite Armor --------------------[Deploy Location 7] 2 LTA Salamander (Light Tanker - 50,000 tons [each])------------------------------ Fire Control: Minimal .. Maneuverability: Lumbering .. Sensors: Blind .. Shields: None .. Structural Integrity: Average 10,000 Titanium Composite Armor Notes: 1> Fire Control, Maneuverability, Sensors, Shields and Structural Integrity are based on ship tonnage percentages, so a large ship with more total Structural Integrity than a small ship might have an inferior rating because it has a lower Structural Integrity per ship ton than the smaller ship. It would still be a lot harder to destroy, but for its *tonnage*, it realizes an inferior rating. 2> Fire Control is based on items with 'Bridge' ratings - this includes most computers, and technologies that provide holographic display systems and so forth. 3> The 'Shield' rating represents Force Shields; the wide variety of other defensive systems, even if they might happen to have names that sound shield-like, are defensive systems and not actual shields. The Type A Defense Screen, for instance, is a defensive system that counters sonic weapons, and is not included in the 'Shield' category. 4> If multiple ships are listed in one line, their weapons loadouts are displayed as the sum total of all of the ships. For example, if 2 Pathfinders are shown in one Deploy Location, two 10cm Autocannons would show up under that listing because each Pathfinder carries one of those weapons. The tonnage listed next to the Pathfinder is shown as 12,000 [each] to indicate that each Pathfinder is 12,000 tons. In this case, the total tonnage for both is 24,000 and they carry two 10cm Autocannons between them. ================================================================================ ======== Edited July 11, 2003 by RTGRuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takeda Posted July 10, 2003 Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 Nice... can't wait to see this when I use it to check out my Yamato class battle...... shssss loose lips sink ships. Takeda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 10, 2003 Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 Ummm, sensors 'Blind' or 'Oblivious'... Perhaps this is why we don't see many other space-faring races yet..... And Shields - guess we might need some of them...... Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted July 10, 2003 Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 Are we going to also get an updated Crystal Palace or is it already there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Miles Avatar Posted July 10, 2003 Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 Very Intresting... very intresting indeed. Looking back on the combat my ships where involved in I see that thier sensors were : aware. hmmm They only had 1st gen short range sensors. Does the FOB take into consideration racial mods or leaders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted July 10, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 No racial mods or leaders are used - those are base values. Note that all of the ratings are % tonnage based, so you can tell how well each ton of the ship in question is protected or enhanced in some way. Shield strength is rated by % as well, to give you an idea how well shielded each ton is, but in the battle program an actual total shield strength is calculated and used as a flat number. By that I mean if a large warship has a poor shield rating, it still might have a lot of shields - which need to be brought down by enemy weapons fire before interior systems are hit. So...large ships can have a poor shield rating per ton, but still have a lot of actual shields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Miles Avatar Posted July 10, 2003 Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 So a small ship that had excellent shield rating might still have less actual shield strength then a much larger ship with feeble shield rating. Also the structual integrity of the ship has to do with armor installed? or is a function of size as well with larger ships having more of it. Also... does armor have to be peeled away with weapons fire before interior systems are also hit? and lastly is there such a thing as a lucky hit? ie critical damage done by relatively minor damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 10, 2003 Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 Ummm, The one area I'd like a little guidance on is Sensors. We know that (from the Tech descriptions) that you only really need one (or a low number) of computers, but do you need large numbers of sensors to actually be effective? I can believe more than one can be useful, and perhaps several is good, but hundreds for a large warship? That seems a little odd - let alone taking up valuable tonnage? Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted July 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2003 Daz - that's right, a small ship could have a superior shield "rating" in the FOB results, but that's just an indication of how well the ship is shielded for it's tonnage. A larger ship might have less shield strength per ton, so would have an inferior rating in the FOB, but in fact could easily have more total shield protection. All items add to Structural Integrity, though some add very little or almost nothing (Fuel Tankage and Cargo Bays, for instance, blow up very easily). Armor is not peeled away separately from other items during combat; instead, it adds Structural Integrity far out of proportion to its tonnage, making the ship much harder to kill. Tedric - You don't need as many computers on a ship because they affect the Bridge rating, which is a Fire Control issue. For the most part, Fire Control is used to determine how many targets a ship can spread its fire over per combat round. Sensors are essentially dual-purpose items: they act as defensive systems and supplement the fire control systems by spotting potential enemy vessels. They are not mandatory, but it's probably a good idea to equip your warships with at least one Sensor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted July 11, 2003 Report Share Posted July 11, 2003 I hope I got this right. If I want to build a Russian Trawler-class Q-boat of 10kT and 5kT (50%) is taken up in assorted Sensor types (Short Range, Medium Range, Long Range). It would have a high Sensor rating? If I put the same number of Sensors on a 100kT Warship, it would have a low Sensor rating because the Sensors would only comprise 5% of the total tonnage? Brain hurting ... need more spreadsheets ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 11, 2003 Report Share Posted July 11, 2003 Hmmm, dearest GM Yes, our efficient ship design spreadsheets can cope with sensors admirably and, of course our warships have at least 1 sensor each.... But should we take the possible 'hint' of our original Pathfinder and put nearer 10% sensors on? With 10% of this, 20% of that, 50% armour, 40% engines, etc - those spreadsheets point out that we can't design ships with 150% 'stuff' ! So, whilst you might be hinting that individual ships in a battle fleet might be better designed as more specialised, can we not put sufficient stuff in one reasonably sized single ship to actually do it's job? Like (with Sensors) actually help spot 'things'... Or is every ship a compromise in what it can do....... Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Miles Avatar Posted July 11, 2003 Report Share Posted July 11, 2003 Ur-Lord Tedric, You bring up a good point but I have seen that there are 'other' technologies that help you 'spot' things. A very good example would be the Patrol Craft. Its very name tells you all about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 12, 2003 Report Share Posted July 12, 2003 Oh yes Honoured One... But if people have to wait to get such high levels of technology for something so basic (spaceships are big energy pumping out items and stand out like spotlights - unless cloaked) - then that seems somewhat odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.