This site is in archival mode. A replacement is being developed. In the meantime, please use the PBW2 Forums for community discussions. The replacement software for this site will use a unified account system with PBW2, and any newly created threads will carry over.
Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: For Referance - Patrol Ship Tender
I have noticed when discussing what information he would like in a tender submission, Kana occasionally makes referance to the tender I submitted for the Patrol Contract. It occurs to me that besides myself and Kana, no-one has seen the submission.
Personally I feel I may have gone a little bit overboard; I had some free time while I was writing the tender and ran a lot of simulations. Some of the design variants I testing in the simulator did later become the potential variants I listed at the bottom of the tender. The design names came from a quick search of wikipedia.
I think an important part of this type of submission is justifying the design choices you have made. Don't rely on the person evaluating the submission seeing the effectiveness of your design just by looking at the components list.
1 Ancient Supply Bay
2 External Heavy Explosive Missiles
Strategy - Maximum Weapon Range
Given the tight requirement for speed and cost any submitted design must make sacrifices, be it in armour, firepower or other area. The Falcon is entirely dependent upon it's speed and superior weapon range for survival, sacrificing all armour so that 25% of the tonnage can be devoted to long range missile systems. The standard Maximum Weapon Range strategy is used to keep the vessel beyond the range of any enemy direct fire weapons.
One on One Simulation Results
Falcon Vs Firefly B - Five simulated engagements. Before the 30 turn limit is reached the Falcon consistently inflicts in excess of 500 points of damage with no damage inflicted in return.
Falcon Vs Amman - Simulations consistently end in both ships destroying each other.
Falcon vs PT - PT destroyed in five engagements with out inflicting any damage on Falcon.
Falcon vs Cat - Falcon undamaged in three engagements. Cat received 325, 430 and 250 points of damage respectively
Falcon vs Hunter - Falcon destroyed in each engagement. Hunter received 280, 280, 210, 350 and 245 point of damage respectively.
Falcon vs Boxer - Five simulated engagement. Falcon Survived Undamaged & Boxer received 480 damage, Falcon Destroyed & Boxer received 420 damage, Falcon Survived undamaged & Boxer received 480 damage, Falcon Survived undamaged & Boxer 510 damaged, Falcon Destroy & Boxer 480 damage
As can be seen from the above tests, while dominant against direct fire ships, the Falcon is vulnerable to return fire from enemy long range missile systems. However even in these situations the Falcon regularly inflicts major damage on opposing vessels that are both larger and more expensive to build than itself.
For a testing a large group of Falcons against a group of enemy ships I simulated balanced fleet with a mixture of direct fire, missile and point defense ships. A squadron of six Falcons was used for the simulations.
Almost all damage inflicted on the Falcons was from the Bolt Hurler.
House Bifrost currently maintains seven shipyards with two more underconstruction. We consider this to be adequate to both supply the Navy with a sufficient number of Falcons and meet our own construction targets.
Potential Class Name List
The following names are all real world common names or regional names for various falcon species. I have excluded names that are strongly connected to a geographical region (eg Madagascar Kestrel, New Zealand Falcon etc).
Potential Design Variants
Three variants of the design are immediately apparent. The first would be an armoured variant that exchanged one missile system for 10kt of armour. Testing has shown this design to have no significant advantage over the standard variant, as the reduced damage per turn results in a longer battle and allows the enemy more time to fire at the patrol ship.
The second would be to replace the heavy explosive missiles with light nuclear missiles. While giving the ship a greater punch per salvo, the reduced firing rate, seeker armour and inability to target fighters are negatives against this variant. The enemy vessels that are likely to be encountered would need to be considered on case by case basis when considering adding this variant to a construction queue.
Thirdly would be the replacement of the explosive missiles with light kinetic missiles. While useless as an independent patrol vessel this variant would instead be used in fleets of several standard Falcons, where it would reduce the vulnerablity of other Falcons to enemy missile fire. SL Heimdall of House Bifrost (PBC IV)
Currently onboard command vessel BGS Resolution Back to top
Thank you SL Heimdall. I've was always meaning to post this. Due to his completeness, and good overall design, he was awarded the Patrol Ship contract. While this document helped, the strength of the design, and the testing of this design and the variants is probably what won him the contract in the end. Others can take note, for future contract submissions for naval designs, but this amount of detail is not required either. FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV) Back to top
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
All logos and trademarks used on this site, all comments and stories posted for reading, all files hosted for download, and all art work hosted for viewing are property of their respective owners; all the rest copyright 2003-2010 Nolan Kelly.
Syndicate news: - Syndicate forums:
Page Generation: 0.17 Seconds