From hellfighter-errors@lists.best.com Fri Nov 12 21:57:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists1.best.com (root@lists1.best.com [206.86.8.15]) by herring.sandwich.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10771; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 21:57:07 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.ls) id VAA26714; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 21:54:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199911130554.VAA26714@lists1.best.com> From: "Patrick Stewart" Subject: Fleet Organization - Comments on Balance Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:53:12 -0400 BestServHost: lists.best.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: hellfighter-errors@lists.best.com Errors-To: hellfighter-errors@lists.best.com Reply-To: hellfighter@lists.best.com To: hellfighter@lists.best.com Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 891 Skant's battlegroup figures look good enough by themselves, but I was curious for awhile as to how an entire coherent Terran Navy would look, with all its fleets with their battlegroups of multiple scales and what have you. So I snapped, got bored, and ballparked together a possible fleet composition for an entire three-Fleet Terran Alliance Navy. I'm going through midterms right now. I'm allowed to not have a life. Anyway, it's almost totally guesswork, but I did try to follow a few things. DNs were heads of fleets, and I took "several" dreadnoughts to mean three seperate fleets in the TAN. I distribbed four CVA battlegroups among them (I'm assuming a more powerful Home Fleet or whatnot), and scattered the fleet distributions downward from there. I made sure there were a great deal of frigate and destroyer battlegroups, and added enough CVEs to battlegroups that had excess fighters to be able to launch all their craft simultaneously. For example, a fleet carrier battlegroup (2xFF, 1xCV) would be changed to 2xFF, 1xCV, 1xCVE to reflect the 12 packed fighters. This probably inflated the CVE figure, but it kept it in proportion with other craft. As for support ships, I assumed five CVSes and six ACVs with their racker complements; two of the CVSes were strong raiding groups with a cruiser attached. Here's the fleet figures I got in the end: DNs - 3 (30000GMUs) CAs - 21 (84000GMUs) DDs - 39 (97500GMUs) FFs - 118 (17700GMUs) CVSs - 5 (60 fighters) CVAs - 7 (336 fighters) CVs - 18 (432 fighters) CVLs - 35 (420 fighters) CVEs - 15 independent, 48 attached - 63 (90 fighters independent) ACVs - 6 (324 fighters; 36 action-ready) TOTAL: 181 warships, 134 carriers, 1662 fighters in 277 squadrons CVRs - #inordinately_huge_number_I'm_not_ready_to_justify (other than the 48 attached to the ACVs!) First thing I took a look at was the CA/CVA ratio. This ratio, roughly three to one, is not really that far off from what the typical cruiser:carrier ratio has been throughout history. Destroyers nowadays typically double cruisers, which also is displayed, and frigates exist in such gnatlike swarms as to be everywhere else. The number of dreadnoughts seems a bit out of ratio with other stuff, but Skant has implied that the DN role has become more propaganda than usefulness in the HF universe, so I'll imagine they're much less important than they would've been in the last major war. The conclusion I get from all of this is that Skant's fleet organizations generally make sense. The ratios between different ships are well-thought-out and don't munch out any one particular class - note the cost ratios shown for the warships, which are generally even for destroyers and cruisers, high for frigates (which would be far more numerous anyway, typically being half a current navy on Earth), and low for DNs despite their enormous cost. It shows a general appearance of cost-effectiveness, which is a Good Thing. I'm wondering one thing though - 277 squadrons is a lot of red tape. Skant got some flak awhile back saying that colonels would command multiple wings, where today a colonel is lucky to have one and a generally usually only commands a small number. Well, blah, because due to the smaller scale of HF squadrons a colonel would likely command the same general number of craft (in the 50-120 range, in other words). A colonel would likely command a battlegroup's assets for most fleets, unless said group was Really Big, and a general would command a task force or even a numbered Fleet's assets (in this case, the latter would come to roughly 550 craft per command. or about twenty-five wings). Well, Skant, to borrow Nem's words from something else, it looks like you thunk this one out. Everything seems to make sense; even more so after the little picture I set up here was made for me to get my nitpickers at. I can't really see any problems, aside from one level of organization - the standard carrier battlegroup (1xCV, 2xFF). Was anything left out here? I have a feeling a destroyer'd be welcome there.. But anyway, other than that, good job, Skant! -Patrick Stewart