Author Topic: Sub-capital weapons in 3025  (Read 2505 times)

Korzon77

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2441
Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« on: 30 January 2018, 03:59:20 »
So, subcaps sort of occupy a weird place being supposedly based on scrapped concepts from the Age of War, yet not appearing until far later.

But what is the impact if sub-capital weapons are developed earlier?  Say as wen warships were being destroyed, teh successor states start desperately looking for anything that could let them either defend from warships or better replace warshps and thus we start getting sub-capital weapons systems in the second-succession war?

pheonixstorm

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5548
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #1 on: 30 January 2018, 04:53:22 »
It would have to be early 2nd SW to be of any use. Even then though with what ComStar was up to I don't think they would have made it past experimental. Who knows, this could very well be one of the projects that ComStar put an end to somewhere in the 1st and 2nd SW. I would think that this would have been a late SLDF project right about the time the SLDF was driving on Terra. It certainly would have been the perfect tech for the spy ships to have.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #2 on: 30 January 2018, 12:24:34 »

I think that it would trigger an escalation into making all dropships yards targets for the houses (and comstar).
It will have severe consequences for the transport network of the Inner Sphere.
And that might cause fragmentation of the houses.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #3 on: 30 January 2018, 14:52:38 »
The chivalric code of warfare that evolved in the late Succession Wars probably couldn't have happened if the option remained to call down Ortillery whenever the going got tough.

Vehrec

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1198
  • Mr. Flibble is Very Cross
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #4 on: 31 January 2018, 18:19:15 »
But what if it doesn't?  What if, instead of arming a handful of pocket Warships, these Subcapital weapons are used to fortify key worlds like Luthien, Hesperus, you get the idea.  Because while Battletech has good knights, it's missing castles.  We need places you need to properly siege and which can't be overturned by armies-at least until the Clans arrive.  And Sub-Caps might be in an ideal place, backed with artillery, to provide some of that.  You'd need to reduce a fortress pretty slowly when it's got SCL/2s and the like.  Sure, 1/36 is a bad hit rate, but 2.7% is about as good as WW1 dreadnaughts-better targeting might bring it down if you really tried.
*Insert support for fashionable faction of the week here*

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #5 on: 31 January 2018, 23:46:05 »
Because while Battletech has good knights, it's missing castles.

Are you sure about that?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Vehrec

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1198
  • Mr. Flibble is Very Cross
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #6 on: 02 February 2018, 09:26:19 »
Are you sure about that?
Yes, actually, I am-Castle Brians do NOT serve the same functions as fortified towns and castles, they are frequently located in remote an inaccessible areas, depend more on concealment than commanding key territory, and-this is important-were not built by local lords but by the Hegemony to enable central rule.  By the 2700s, they are either destroyed, hidden, and generally out of use across the Inner Sphere, and weren't built for positive-control anyways.  In a Succession Wars era, they're lootboxes for PCs, and in the Clan Wars, they're active deathtraps if you haven't refit their systems totally because Clanners know all the secret entrances.

In real life, fortified towns and castles combined with the lack of formalized logistics, meant that armies could and did make incredibly deep penetrations of enemy territory that amounted to very little, while serious siege was the most difficult of arts because any army would deplete the locally available resources.  Investing multiple fortresses at the same time invites defeat in detail or sallying out to skirmish and then retreat.  But all this was only possible because the fortified towns and castles sheltered the wealth and economic centers of the countryside.  Castles located on barren mountains or desolate forests where nobody would ever think to look for them were NOT the order of the day.  You built a castle to hold down control over a region but the Brians don't do a very good job of that post Amaris, because they're either radioactive or practically invisible.
*Insert support for fashionable faction of the week here*

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #7 on: 02 February 2018, 10:49:21 »
Castles Brian were intended to be towers, but the whole planet was the fortress. If you dominate all space approaches, then they can't invade and can only siege. It's a fairly similar mentality, but writ very large. 

Vition2

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 856
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #8 on: 02 February 2018, 11:54:07 »
The "job" of a medieval castle was not to protect itself (ie, it's own system), it was to provide a vantage point where the lord and troops inside could control the surrounding area.  A proper "castle" in the BattleTech universe would need to have massive amounts of space assets and lift capability, being able to get troops to threatened areas within their areas of control quickly.  During the Star League, there are a couple of "Naval" castles, but even in the Hegemony these were extremely rare.

In a lot of cases during the succession wars, there wasn't a real capability for "castles" to exist, their areas of influence were too small to cover more than a few inhabited systems.  The reintroduction of LFBs make them a more realistic potential again, drastically increasing the areas they can reach in short notice.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6120
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #9 on: 02 February 2018, 19:26:47 »
In the words of an English comedy writer, space is really big.

For our purposes it means that it is impossible to control access to a planet until you have CASPAR density defenses.

This is where Castle Brians come in. Their primary function is to prevent a population or an asset being bombarded until help arrives. The first part of that is not being seen. Hence the camouflage.

If the defenders aren't coming out to play you either begin recon or occupation. Now the Castle cam assume a traditional castle role as a secure logistics hub. If the Castle' s location is identified then all the Ferro concrete can come into play.

But the main point is in a month or two the SLDF is going to arrive and no one can resist that.

Korzon77

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2441
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #10 on: 03 February 2018, 02:24:51 »
The problem with comparing a castle brian to an ancient capital is that medieval nations had a lot of easy choke points and were honestly, small. A modern industrial world in the 3000s has hundredso of millions of people scattered over an entire planet, and even i fyou fortify factory A, it won't help you unless you can protect the trains used to supply it.  There's a reason modern fortifications have largely lost popularity.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6120
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Sub-capital weapons in 3025
« Reply #11 on: 03 February 2018, 05:41:55 »
Sure. But they offer a solution to a problem that is impractical to solve until vastly more resources are available.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with the Acropolis?

 

Register