Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 20, 2007	14		03/20 10:25am

I can go with 3 Hunter engines. Likewise, the refit can afford to upgrade 2 P2s to P1s, though if I were paying for it I'd do the FA-L/FA-R instead.

Comparing it to a Lancer shows why it wouldn't be built. Weapon-wise, it adds a P2 in exchange for a fusion (even trade), has the same fighters and the same net power at speed 15+HK. It gets 1 more Bridge, 1 more Trac, 1 shuttle, 1-2 more hull, 12 shield boxes, and better Sen/Scan/DC. In return it has a worse turn mode, worse BD rating and lower top speed.

Maybe it sucks just a bit too much. I suggest adding another two Stingers and bumping the front shields to 28-22-16-16 to give it just that tiny bit more chance of reaching Fusion range.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Giving it 2 more fighters makes a bit of sense...Lancer has 4, this thing has 6, Ranger has 9. Otherwise leave it As Is...

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:16 am: Edit

The horseman has 6 also.

By James B. Pennington (Cutlass401) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 02:57 pm: Edit

The Amazon as designed only has 4 fighters, I wanted it to carry less than the later Horseman, which ment 4 or 5. I gave it 4 to show another reason that the Lancer destroyer was prefered.

I believe that upgrading the phasers should be limited to the 2 FA P-2 that way it is consistent with other Hydran cruiser classes. (though if given a choice as a ship captain I would upgrade the FA+L/R instead)

JBP

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Trouble is, it's bigger than a Lancer, so should have more Stuff, and that should include either guns or fighters. As written, is imply is not worth the extra 8 BPV over a Lancer.

A box count of all the Y134 Hydrans gives:
Hunter: 40 + 72 sh
Lancer: 59 + 100 sh
Ranger: 100 + 135 sh

which suggests (by curve fitting against MC) that the Amazon would be expected to have some 75 + 115 boxes. The ship as listed has 69 + 104, so it needs something. Not much (because it's meant to suck) but something.

Here is a v2 with 6 fighters, FA P1s, the original 16 hull (15 looked better before) and slightly better shields.

There are other ways of imposing problems on it, whilst allowing it the boxes it needs. For example, not enough launch tubes, bad turn mode, bad BD rating, etc.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Here's an alternate idea (I'd suggest the Hydrans built a couple of each). The Hoplite (SSD in the same place) is a CL on a shortened Ranger hull, keeping the full armament but no fighters at all. It's probably underpowered.

(is the name Hoplite taken?)

By James B. Pennington (Cutlass401) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Version 2 of the Amazon would work also. Increasing the warp to 3x7 (after a refit) would help with it being underpowered. Gotta be careful however this design version 1 or 2 still must be inferior to the Horseman/Traveler since that is a historical design and the Amazon/Centaur is not (yet).

And no I don't think the name Hoplite is taken.

JBP

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 07:20 pm: Edit

I might suggest that you use Pegasus engines (3x7), but a 3/4 move cost, instead of 2/3.

That gives it a basic power-to-movement ratio similar to other comparable major combat ships of its era (ranger, lancer, tug).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:16 pm: Edit

This design predates the pegasus by a good margin.

If you're shortening a Ranger all bets are off, but a prequel to the Traveller is best off w/ a 2/3

By James B. Pennington (Cutlass401) on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 09:31 am: Edit

I would prefer to leave the MC 2/3. The Amazon/Centaur/Hoplite has about the same number of internals as the Horseman/Traveler (maybe slightly less) so the MC should be 2/3.

I will agree with using 3 Hunter-Class engines to start then using 3 Pegasus-Class engines after a refit.

It would even after the refit have about the same power as the Horseman/Traveler did before their refit, again showing how this design is still somewhat inferior to the later light cruisers.

JBP

By James B. Pennington (Cutlass401) on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Revised proposal Ver 2.1:

Amazon-Class AZ:

3x6 Warp (R 3x7)
3 Impulse
3 APR
3 BTTY
2 Bridge
2 Aux
2 Emer
2 Tran
2 Trac
16 C Hull
4 Lab
1 Probe
7 Shuttle (5 St-1)
2 P-2 FA (R P-1)
1 P-2 FA+L
1 P-2-FA+R
2 P-G RA (R 1 ea. LS/RS)
1 Fusion LF+L
1 Fusion RF+R


Centaur-Class CT:

7 APR
3 Shuttle ( 1 ST-1)
1 Hellbore LF+L
1 Hellbore RF+R

Total Ship (w/out warp): 54
Total Power (AZ): 24+3 (R+3) (CT): 28+3 (R+3)

BPV (AZ): ~75 (CT): ~90 (Refit + ~12)
MC: 2/3
TM: C
BD: 4-6
SC: 3
Sensor: 6-6-5-3-1-0
Scanner: 0-0-1-3-5-9
DC: 4-4-2-2-0
ED: 5
Shields: 28-22-16-16 (R 0+0+6+6)

Uses 3 Hunter-Class warp engines until the refit replaces them with 3 Pegasus-Class engines. Refit upgrades the FA P-2 to P-1, changes P-G RA to 1 ea. P-G LS/RS, and strengthens shields 3-4-5.

Backround info otherwise unchanged.

Comments?

JBP