Chrysanthemum vs. Fer-de-lance
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
on April 30th, 2013, 09:44 PM you posted the following:
looks to me as if the chrysanthemum has official "detached" duties, while the fer-de-lance is defacto detached from fleet elements and operates mostly with the civilian herd - if that can be considered "detached".
for the chrysanthemum to be unstreamlined is ridiculous if it is to operate alone. three weeks of maneuver fuel is cutting it too close. it also appears to be underdesigned and underarmed. for it to carry troops seems inefficient.
no stats are listed here for the fer-de-lance so no evaluation is possible.
looks to me as if the chrysanthemum has official "detached" duties, while the fer-de-lance is defacto detached from fleet elements and operates mostly with the civilian herd - if that can be considered "detached".
for the chrysanthemum to be unstreamlined is ridiculous if it is to operate alone. three weeks of maneuver fuel is cutting it too close. it also appears to be underdesigned and underarmed. for it to carry troops seems inefficient.
no stats are listed here for the fer-de-lance so no evaluation is possible.
I've always liked the Chrysanthemum. If flykiller's stats are accurate for inclusion of the cutter, it probably uses that for fuel runs, though now that I want to design it using MgT I would rewrite it to either be streamlined or partially so.
And I would use my house-rule about fuel efficiency - the one that appears in Compendium 1. So even with a TL 10, TL 12 and TL 15 variant it'd have more than 3 weeks of plant fuel.
And I would use my house-rule about fuel efficiency - the one that appears in Compendium 1. So even with a TL 10, TL 12 and TL 15 variant it'd have more than 3 weeks of plant fuel.
The Supplement-9 designs? They're almost identical except one has a single layer of armor, some sandcasters, a single battery each of fusion guns, particle accel's, and missiles, and only one cutter, while the other has no armor, five batteries each of missiles and laser turrets, and two cutters. So, Chryssie has a slight defensive edge, Ferdie has more offensive punch.
Neither one is much good in an offensive role against agile naval opponents but both are hard to hit, which makes them both decent escorts for covering a disengagement or buying time till rescuers show up, if you can put enough of them out there to deal with the volume of fire a typical cruiser or dreadnought can put out. Chryssie can take more weapon hits and that layer of armor takes the Weapon-3 result off the table when receiving fire from secondary batteries, which makes her a bit better in that role. Ferdie's offensive edge is most useful when fighting pirates, fighters or others with lower agility or low-rated computers, so she's best in roles that put her opposite those enemies, handing out more hits per turn than Chryssie can manage.
I'm not thrilled with either design, though. I'd have gone for full streamlining.
Neither one is much good in an offensive role against agile naval opponents but both are hard to hit, which makes them both decent escorts for covering a disengagement or buying time till rescuers show up, if you can put enough of them out there to deal with the volume of fire a typical cruiser or dreadnought can put out. Chryssie can take more weapon hits and that layer of armor takes the Weapon-3 result off the table when receiving fire from secondary batteries, which makes her a bit better in that role. Ferdie's offensive edge is most useful when fighting pirates, fighters or others with lower agility or low-rated computers, so she's best in roles that put her opposite those enemies, handing out more hits per turn than Chryssie can manage.
I'm not thrilled with either design, though. I'd have gone for full streamlining.
One was designed by one naval architect somewhere at some time and one was designed by another naval architect somewhere else at some other time.
Hans
Taking Hans' comment with its intended grain of salt, I'm going to develop Carlobrand's conclusion here:
From this, I'm thinking the T5 versions need a bit of a facelift, with the Chrysanthemum having a Defender or Escort role, and the Fer-de-lance having a Frigate role.
From this, I'm thinking the T5 versions need a bit of a facelift, with the Chrysanthemum having a Defender or Escort role, and the Fer-de-lance having a Frigate role.
SpaceBadger
SOC-14 1K
What the heck is a commcaster? Datacaster? New weapons from T5?
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Exactly. T5 all the way. Useless in an other version as there is no corresponding defense in other versions.
Weapons of Spacewarfare.
The CommCaster allows naval ships to use the total sensor data for battery fire, the DataCaster is a cyber-information weapon that spoofs sensors and is used for an anti-msissile role or against enemy ships' computers and sensors.
CommCaster & DataCaster
From T5 Core Rules, p. 388:
From T5 Core Rules, p. 388:
COMMCASTER
CommCasters are dedicated information and communications links between the ships.
Sensor Data. Two ships, each with CommCasters can share Sensor Data, and each may attack targets sensed by the other.
Virtual Battery Fire. Ships (each equipped with CommCaster) can attack the same target with weapons of the same Type (but not necessarily the same TL or Mount). The hits inflicted by the weapons are summed.
DATACASTER
DataCasters are offensive weapons broadcasting or beamcasting petabytes of information at or against enemy sensors and communicators. DataCasters pursue three strategies: they attempt to spook or overload sensors, they attempt to introduce viruses into onboard systems through flaws in sensor inputs, and they transmit tailored psychological messages and propaganda.
Sensor Overload. Successful DataCaster Attacks on Sensors or Comms inflict Damage on a specific Sensor or Comm.
Virus. Successful DataCaster attacks on non-Sensor, non-Comm locations insert a Virus. A Virus successfully introduced onto a ship disables the Component at the Hit Location. In each successive Combat Round, the Virus may attack an adjacent Hit Location and succeeds if 1D < Computer + Virus. For example, a Virus is assigned a value = 1D = 3. It attacks an adjacent Hit Location Power Plant controlled by Computer/2. It must roll 1D for 2+3 or less = 5. If successful, that location is disabled. A Virus is isolated if all computer connections are cut between the Virus disabled locations and all other hit locations. The computers can operate independently; but this step prevents use of batteries and commcasters, and restricts the use of weapons to R=7 or less.
Psychological Attacks. Datacaster attacks provide a shifting series of morale attacks, false messages, appeals to a variety of cultural and social fears. Psychological attacks challenge the Sanity of crew, passengers, staff, and troops. A successful Datacaster attack requires each individual in the affected area to Check SAN.
CommCasters are dedicated information and communications links between the ships.
Sensor Data. Two ships, each with CommCasters can share Sensor Data, and each may attack targets sensed by the other.
Virtual Battery Fire. Ships (each equipped with CommCaster) can attack the same target with weapons of the same Type (but not necessarily the same TL or Mount). The hits inflicted by the weapons are summed.
DATACASTER
DataCasters are offensive weapons broadcasting or beamcasting petabytes of information at or against enemy sensors and communicators. DataCasters pursue three strategies: they attempt to spook or overload sensors, they attempt to introduce viruses into onboard systems through flaws in sensor inputs, and they transmit tailored psychological messages and propaganda.
Sensor Overload. Successful DataCaster Attacks on Sensors or Comms inflict Damage on a specific Sensor or Comm.
Virus. Successful DataCaster attacks on non-Sensor, non-Comm locations insert a Virus. A Virus successfully introduced onto a ship disables the Component at the Hit Location. In each successive Combat Round, the Virus may attack an adjacent Hit Location and succeeds if 1D < Computer + Virus. For example, a Virus is assigned a value = 1D = 3. It attacks an adjacent Hit Location Power Plant controlled by Computer/2. It must roll 1D for 2+3 or less = 5. If successful, that location is disabled. A Virus is isolated if all computer connections are cut between the Virus disabled locations and all other hit locations. The computers can operate independently; but this step prevents use of batteries and commcasters, and restricts the use of weapons to R=7 or less.
Psychological Attacks. Datacaster attacks provide a shifting series of morale attacks, false messages, appeals to a variety of cultural and social fears. Psychological attacks challenge the Sanity of crew, passengers, staff, and troops. A successful Datacaster attack requires each individual in the affected area to Check SAN.
Hi,
Yes I preferred the Chrysanthemum as well, it didn't look unstreamlined to me,
I would assume the Cutter had fuel and boarding modules to enable the marines to board pirates.
I don't have compendium 1, but I would have thought fuel efficiency came in at TL12+, since the power plant range is 11 - 14? TL15 smaller anyway and requiring less fuel?
Regards
David
Carlobrand beginning to have second thoughts about T5.
The CT Supplement 9 version? That's an interesting one. The book version shows 1 cutter and no cargo room. However, when you run the numbers, you get 37 dTons free, so there's be room for a module - except that the crew count is off. Book calls for 6 officers and 10 ratings, but Book 2 crew rules call for a pilot, navigator, medic, 9 engineers (presumably one of them an officer) and 8 gunners, for a total crew of 20. Book 5 rules, if you chose to apply them, just make matters worse. So, you end up having to add a couple staterooms, which leaves you with only 29 dTons free. You can have the alternate module if you find a way to reduce the crew to 19, possibly by consolidating or reducing the sandcasters.
Me, I'd consolidate the sandcasters as one Factor 7 battery of four triples to deal with the odd missile that gets past agility, then add a Factor 4 triple laser turret ('cause there's some unused power going to waste otherwise). Reduces the number of anti-missile batteries but makes it much more certain that the battery will be useful, adds a bit more depth in terms of weapon hits the escort can absorb, adds an attack, and reduces crew to 17, which means there's room for an alternate cutter module.
(Actually, I'm not a fan of the cutter. I'd prefer a pair of armed 30dT ship's boats: one with seats, one cargo/fueler. Covers the needs and provides more and higher-agility fire support for commerce raiding or attacking surface targets. Then the extra tonnage can be taken as a couple of factors of additional armor.)
The T5 version, I don't know anything about.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
So the BETTER the computer is, the GREATER the chance is that the virus succeeds?
Therefore:
Computer/9. It must roll 1D for 9+3 or less = 12
Hi,
Thanks that's helpful, I saw the Cutter as more flexible once it was tailored for the mission, but 2 x30t Gigs actually makes more sense, as if you lose one it's only 50% of your detached assets.
In T5 the Chrysanthemum is replaced by a 600 ton modular Frigate that looks remarkably similar.
Kind Regards
David
So the BETTER the computer is, the GREATER the chance is that the virus succeeds?
Therefore:
Computer/9. It must roll 1D for 9+3 or less = 12
At a guess: I think the intent is that the more sophisticated/networked a computer system becomes, the more vulnerable it can potentially become to a virus. The defense would be in having sophisticated software countermeasures and/or hardware architecture. However, I do not think there are any rules for countermeasure software? (I could be wrong).
You might want to check the T5-Beta CD-ROM from 2008 about computers (Chapter 28 - Computers). In there, the computers actually had a phyisical architecture of "cells" of different configurations, with virus attacks proceeding into adjacent cells and being resisted by code resident in those cells. The more cells you had, the more potential pathways the virus had to spread, and you actually "built" your computer network on your ship from component computers.
It may be that there has been an oversight in this area of the rules between the orginal computer design system and what eventually was published.
