Author Topic: redesigning the sl navy  (Read 1418 times)

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2156
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
redesigning the sl navy
« on: 17 May 2017, 18:12:52 »
Aegis class - would you sacrifice some of its boom sticks for improved thrust?

Giovanni Blasini

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3374
  • Niops Assoc.- Sponsored by Interstellar Expeditons
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #1 on: 17 May 2017, 20:58:38 »
Why? It could easily spare 45 kilotons for another point of thrust.
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”
― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3885
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #2 on: 18 May 2017, 07:31:16 »
Why does it need another point of thrust?

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2156
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #3 on: 18 May 2017, 08:03:30 »
Why does it need another point of thrust?

AU idea where the SL remnant apply the lessons of the Liberation. One thing that is decided is ships with 2/3 were consistently out manoeuvred by their opponents. Also integral point defence is a good thing, particularly with the fleet so depleted that massed squadrons and layered defences are no longer possible. Eventually, pocket warship become escort vessels for single ship detachments which by thus time (late 2900s) develop naval C3 to tie it all together.

Giovanni Blasini

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3374
  • Niops Assoc.- Sponsored by Interstellar Expeditons
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #4 on: 18 May 2017, 13:08:53 »
Why does it need another point of thrust?

Another point of safe thrust. Let's not forget it actually gives two points of thrust total at max thrust, moving from 2/3 to 3/5.

As to what it gives you, a 3/5 ship is far better capable of using maneuvers like yawing, evasive maneuvers, etc. while being able to apply regular thrust or turns, or even just keeping 2 MP in reserve for an ECHO when it might find itself needing one.  Going from 2/3 to 3/5 really opens up a lot of options.
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”
― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

Death by Lasers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 297
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #5 on: 19 May 2017, 20:57:05 »
  I love the Aegis too much to change it.  It's my favorite warship.  I mean, aside from the Lithium-Fusion battery it's got virtually no thrust and no virtually no armor.  It's a giant floating pile of guns duct-taped together and I love it!  ;D
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

J.R.R Tolikien, The Two Towers

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6717
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #6 on: 19 May 2017, 22:44:37 »
I don't have stats in front of me but I didn't recall the Aegis having the HUGE cargo bays of most of the SLDF, so I don't think I'd want to shift from Cargo.

Maybe weapons depending on if there are too many to fire with the HS it has.

I think maybe some of the Dual NAC 35's could be removed for speed since those are the shortest ranged weapons.

Now for something like the Cameron or SovSoy, I would happily trade Cargo for Speed there, but I wouldn't drop weapons any further.

3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Vition2

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 628
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #7 on: 19 May 2017, 23:38:27 »
I don't have stats in front of me but I didn't recall the Aegis having the HUGE cargo bays of most of the SLDF, so I don't think I'd want to shift from Cargo.

Simply increasing the thrust profile to 3/5 leaves a bit more than 40kt of cargo.  While not as cavernous as most SLDF warships, that is still plenty.

It would also be my choice, but if I was forced to decrease bang to pay for some of the speed, I would start with downgrading the NAC 35s to 30s or even 25s, then drop the rest into cargo.  That will end up leaving about 50kt of cargo with 30s, or 59kt with 25s.

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4089
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #8 on: 21 May 2017, 04:40:38 »
I'd sacrifice some of the cargo capacity to ramp up the speed, otherwise the Aegis is a fine fine vessel, especially the final refit.

One change i'd make is to the glorified frigate aka the Sovietskii Soyuz. Apparently she was meant to have to have something like 24 NL-45's on her as well, so add them. Put them in two quad turrets on the Front left/right and aft left/right as well as one quad mount in the nose and stern.  Give her heatsinks to fire the lot and look at adding more missiles and some point defence. 
She's got a cargo capacity bigger than a fair few superliners weigh so any changes there would be gobbled up by that pointlessly huge mass of space. 

The Texas again suffers from having monstrous amounts of cargo space and a very weak punch.  As she's meant to be a long range puncher, rip out the NAC-40's and replace with gauss rifles, add more ammo to the AR-10's including Killer whales, as well as upgrading the Killer whale launchers to AR-10s.  Maybe some NAC-20's to cover the bow and stern and a sprinke of AMS and some point defences (LRMs).  You'ver got 301,000 tons to play with pre LF battery addition or 286k to work with after, you could probably chop her down to 86k tons of cargo giving you 200k to work with.

And then there's the fleet structure itself. I know that saying this will inflame Jellico :p and that I know I think too much in naval terms, but the SLDF has the worlds most wonky fleet structure.

You'd think that after the Reunification War they would go "Hmmm..Jumpships are great but too vulnerable to transport troops in a hot combat zone." and would put out requirements for a whole raft of troopships from the Volga (but without the insanity of using the Quixote, that thing is a supeb anti-fighter boat) to something with say 12 docking collars on all the way up to the Potemkin class. 

For military operations I'd expect a large freighter/AOR equivalent that could supply dropships to help load/unload ammo etc or perform alongside refuelling.

The Reunification war showed that fighter and dropship spam was dangerous if not lethal to even the largest capital ship.  So where was the AA destroyer/frigate/cruiser that could engage hostile craft before they become a threat or start tangling with the fighter screen.

Why do none of the 3057 ships have marines onboard, what about carriers, the list goes on and on. 


Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Ruger

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2754
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #9 on: 21 May 2017, 09:16:23 »
I'd sacrifice some of the cargo capacity to ramp up the speed, otherwise the Aegis is a fine fine vessel, especially the final refit.

Agreed

Quote
One change i'd make is to the glorified frigate aka the Sovietskii Soyuz. Apparently she was meant to have to have something like 24 NL-45's on her as well, so add them. Put them in two quad turrets on the Front left/right and aft left/right as well as one quad mount in the nose and stern.  Give her heatsinks to fire the lot and look at adding more missiles and some point defence. 
She's got a cargo capacity bigger than a fair few superliners weigh so any changes there would be gobbled up by that pointlessly huge mass of space. 

I've always favored adding the 18 additional NL-45's to the Sovetskii Soyuz...my thought though, is to make them as 6 gun turrets on the quarter arcs. I'd also bump up the engine to give 3/5 thrust, double the Killer Whale missile launchers on the bow, triple the Barracuda launchers, add twin White Shark launchers on the fore-quarters and aft (and give at least 20 missiles per launcher to all missile launchers) and add quad turrets of light naval gauss rifles on the quarters (and maybe the broadsides). Finally, I'd like to double the number of medium NPPC's, but keep them in quad turrets, and at least double the heat sinks...make the ship into a kind of mix of a Quixote and Farragut and Texas-light...remember that this ship was supposed to excel at long range combat...I think all these multi-gun extended range turrets would go a long way to achieving that (especially with bracket-fire capabilities)...even if you to just add the NL-45's and light naval gauss rifles as I suggested should go a long way to achieving that without doing anything else...

Quote
The Texas again suffers from having monstrous amounts of cargo space and a very weak punch.  As she's meant to be a long range puncher, rip out the NAC-40's and replace with gauss rifles, add more ammo to the AR-10's including Killer whales, as well as upgrading the Killer whale launchers to AR-10s.  Maybe some NAC-20's to cover the bow and stern and a sprinke of AMS and some point defences (LRMs).  You'ver got 301,000 tons to play with pre LF battery addition or 286k to work with after, you could probably chop her down to 86k tons of cargo giving you 200k to work with.

I think I would go a different route here...keep the ship as is, but add twin turrets of heavy naval gauss rifles in the following locations: bow, stern, aft-quarters and two twin turrets in each broadside (16 guns total...or maybe two twin turrets in the bow, for 18 heavy naval gauss rifles total, same as the Farragut, just with the fore-quarters weapons moved to the broadsides)...The high costs associated with so many heavy naval gauss rifles (as per the Farragut-class battleship) would help explain why the number of Texas-class battleships were so low, and were then supplemented with 5+ times their numbers in weaker-armored but just as heavily armed McKenna-class battleships...

And these mods could be explained by the 2750 TRO not having the naval gauss rifles in it, therefore, those weapons could not be listed on the WarShips detailed at that time...

Edit: Oh, and I would seriously consider adding lithium-fusion batteries to the Texas-class...

Ruger

« Last Edit: 21 May 2017, 10:30:51 by Ruger »
"If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." - Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall...Stand with me." - The Doctor, The Doctor Falls, Doctor Who

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6717
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #10 on: 21 May 2017, 14:47:00 »
I've always favored adding the 18 additional NL-45's to the Sovetskii Soyuz...my thought though, is to make them as 6 gun turrets on the quarter arcs. I'd also bump up the engine to give 3/5 thrust, double the Killer Whale missile launchers on the bow, triple the Barracuda launchers, add twin White Shark launchers on the fore-quarters and aft (and give at least 20 missiles per launcher to all missile launchers) and add quad turrets of light naval gauss rifles on the quarters (and maybe the broadsides).

I went with something a bit less drastic based on the fluff of NACs being the "Main Firepower" yet supported by a large array of energy weapons.
Basically I just chalked it up to a large "copy/paste" error in 2750,  as in they forgot to do one, hehe.
I stretched the NAC & PPC bays to cover all 3 side arcs.  Duplicated the Nose Missiles to the AFT,  & copied the NL's to all 8 arcs from just 2.


Now the Capital armament would look like this:
    4 Killer Whale
   24 NL45
    4 Barracuda
   18 NAC/20
   12 Medium NPPC

Its still not MASSIVE, like the Aegis/Black Lion but its got the solid long ranged guns that it is supposed to have based on the fluff.

Upping the speed & HS also helps & it still ends up having nearly 15% of its mass in Cargo to fit in with the other SLDF Fleet of glorified "transports" feel.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4089
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #11 on: 22 May 2017, 05:58:23 »
Both refits could work and yeah that upgunning of the Texas to be a different Farragut makes sense, along with the gausses being used as a reason why there's only 52 Texas class ships.

The Congress is another class that again needs a LOT of work, yes she's a patrol boat and a 'true' Frigate in the sailing era sense.  But she's also woefully undergunned for her size.  The single missile launchers are a waste of tonnage unless you're throwing missiles at fighters and dropships.  And six NAC-10s in dual gun mounts and a single NAC-30 on a 760,000 ton ship is bonkers :s  The Lola outguns her and as a Frigate you'd expect her to be able to take on hostile Destroyers as they would probably be convoy raiders.

The Black Lion is fine, just add some AMS and more ammo for her barracuda launchers.

you could even fix the Cameron class, again just gobble up some of that monstrous cargo space.  Amp her up to a 3/5 and add energy weapons and missile ammo for her AR-10's.  Maybe make the HNPPC's be quad mounts, smatter on some AMS and some LRM's or something. 

The Potemkin i'd leave as is save some heavy AMS defences and anti-fighter armament as well as a LF battery.  Of all the SLDF ships she's the only one that makes sense to have a cargo capacity that you could happily loose a Super Tanker in.

All of the ships need a Marine compliment onboard whilst BB's and BC's need a mobile HPG (as does the Potemkin).

Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Wrangler

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12575
  • Dang it!
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #12 on: 22 May 2017, 07:22:38 »
Without compromising the firepower, Aegis needs better anti-missile system of some kind as does most of the original generation of ships from TRO:2750.

I like Hellraier's version of the Sovetskii Soyuz better than what currently on that boat.  It's not a heavy cruiser (at least not since TRO: 2750) with it's guns being translated to state it's in.  It maybe Assault Transport vs Heavy Cruiser.

I would like see the Texas fixed so it has guns in all its arcs instead of some as well.  having that blind spot of a lack of weapons was always a pain when i used that ship.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4089
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #13 on: 22 May 2017, 08:51:49 »
How about this

Battleship/Battlecruiser  3 - 4 AMS per arc.
Cruiser - 2 AMS per arc
DD/Frigate/corvette - 1 AMS per arc. 

Certain ships could change this, like a heavy escort DD could have a buttload of AMS but only if it was supported fluffwise as the ships design, she's an anti-missile ship there to act as a gate guardian for a critical asset
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Wrangler

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12575
  • Dang it!
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #14 on: 22 May 2017, 09:06:08 »
How about this

Battleship/Battlecruiser  3 - 4 AMS per arc.
Cruiser - 2 AMS per arc
DD/Frigate/corvette - 1 AMS per arc. 

Certain ships could change this, like a heavy escort DD could have a buttload of AMS but only if it was supported fluffwise as the ships design, she's an anti-missile ship there to act as a gate guardian for a critical asset
What about conventional weaponry besides aa-guns?  I'm not entirely sure how effective the machine guns are on the first generation of weapons are for point defense.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4089
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #15 on: 22 May 2017, 11:04:01 »
Hmm well a smattering of AC's/LRMs and MGs on older vessels like say the Monsoons, whilst later ships get LB-10's, LRM with Arti IV and AMS, or replace LRMs with clusters of large lasers and the like. Smaller ships might go for batteries of large and medium lasers vs autocannons and LRMs to save space (not that with that much cargo space they actually need space to be saved)

Or for older ships go and do what the Dreadnought class did, quad mounts of AC-5s and AC-2's and MG's for point defence.  The Dreadnought had a pair of quad AC-5's and a pair of quad AC-2's in each section so for its time against 'armed shuttles' thats not at all bad.   Sure its NOT damaging at all but its flavourful if you like to picture this;




Also re the Aegis, she was not under-armoured, she had more armour than pretty much everything until the Black Lion moon walked onto the scene.

If  I was to change the Monsoon I'd add a trio of Quad AC-5's to each section and 6 MGs per section. As they count as half against missiles it would be the equivalent of 3 AMS.  I'd also put a quad or even quin NAC-10 in the FL/FR AL/AR and stern arcs to give her some more long ranged firepower.  You've got a huge amount of tonnage to work with so you can use it.

With tighter designs like the Black Lion I'd keep her pretty much as is,  add a LF battery and mobile HPG, see if you can another Barracuda launcher where they are plus ammo, as well as either some triple large lasers (or ER large when available) or triple large pulse for anti-fighter defences.  This won't affect her cargo too much and you've got 4 dropcollars so just have a mule with you.

With the McKenna, add marines, add a mobile HPG, and up her armour to at least Texas levels whilst adding some LB-10s and large pulse or ER large laser turrets and a good smattering of AMS across her, whilst doubling the ammo load (at least).  I'd even think about doubling up on the AR-10's and at least doubling their ammo, and add a pair to the AL/AR arcs as these missiles really are your main anti-fighter defence.

The Lola III's firepower is fine, add a grav-deck for the crew, up the armour so its at least 50 on sections (she's a 'heavy destroyer' after all).  Add a mix of medium and large lasers (two of each type per section) along with AMS for close in defense.  Maybe add another NL-55 to the AL/AR but otherwise keep the rest.  Grav deck would be nice though.

The Essex II seems to be a cheaper design but she's still a tad lacking.  Up the armour so its at least 40 on all sections to start with.  Maybe double her fighter capacity to 12 and keep the 4 shuttles.  With the NL's and Med PPCs, i'd make the NL-35's at least quad mounts and add another Med naval PPC to make them triple mounts.  Some LRM's for anti-fighter work and some AMS.  Oh and at least double the fuel tanks. 

The Whirlwind is a bit tighter. Whilst i'd not bring her armour up to Clan levels i'd at least want the sides and rear to be 40.  Add a pair of NL-35's to the FL/FR and swap the positions of the NAC's and gauss.  Put all three Gauss in the nose and the NAC-25's in the FL/FR .

Congress - Make the NAC-10 mounts be quad mounts at the cost of the NAC-30s, double the ammo for the missiles, add a pair of Killer whales for 3 in the bow.  In the FL/FR AL/AR i'd add a quad NL-35 mount whilst also looking at doubling the fighter capacity to 12.  She's a patrol craft and her fighters will be her eyes.  Marines for boarding actions, a mobile HPG and double up on her large lasers and add AMS.  I'd also look at making her a 4/6, she's a bit slow.

Really the only ship you can't significantly change without a complete re-working is the Kimagure. They have no cargo to work with.  Only thing i'd do is replace the small pulse lasers with 3 AMS per section and some ammo.






« Last Edit: 22 May 2017, 16:48:10 by marauder648 »
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4089
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #16 on: 23 May 2017, 08:54:01 »
Of course, I am completely spitballing here.  I've no idea of the changes involved and how much tonnage it would gobble up. 
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

I am Belch II

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6339
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #17 on: 23 May 2017, 09:10:53 »
I would add as maximum amount of the best armor you can find with all the warships.
The firepower of the Aegis is great but would be so much better if it can last more then a turn or two.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4089
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #18 on: 24 May 2017, 02:57:33 »
I'd say doing that would be a bit boring, yeah it makes sense but its a bit dull and would drag out games.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Wrangler

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12575
  • Dang it!
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #19 on: 24 May 2017, 07:07:28 »
The firepower of the Aegis is great but would be so much better if it can last more then a turn or two.
3/5 would be an improvement, at least the refit version should get that vs the original 2300 version.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #20 on: 24 May 2017, 13:17:16 »
All of the ships need a Marine compliment onboard

I'll second this, and add that every ship should have a fighter screen on board, with numbers dependent on size of ship, starting with at least a pair of squadrons for a corvette and getting more as the ship gets bigger.

Each ship should also have small craft on board, at least enough to transport the marine contingent, so they are more than just a defensive option.

BB's and BC's need a mobile HPG (as does the Potemkin).

Since the SLDF had NCSS at least as early as the Bug Eye, anything built after that should have NCSSs. I can't think of any reason they wouldn't other than cost, and the SLDF really wouldn't have an issue with that. Mckennas especially should have these, along with anything intended for a command role.

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6717
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #21 on: 24 May 2017, 17:08:27 »
All of the ships need a Marine compliment onboard whilst BB's and BC's need a mobile HPG (as does the Potemkin).

I'm pretty sure this is another one of those things that much like "small anti-fighter weapons to protect the launch bays" is written in fluff but we never see it in the actual stats.

I don't think EVERY BC/BB needs an HPG, but at least couple models noted for either working alone or as fleet command ships (McKenna) should have had them.

In my own head-canon I put Mech scale weaponry & AMS enough to fill every single bay up to the 20 gun limit on all warships.  It just makes sense to me.

For Example: 
SovSoy Nose bay only has 2 KillerWhales?   Fine, but, I also add 3 more bays of 5 AMS, 7 ERLL, & 6 PPC as well to give it 20 guns in that Nose bay & keep fighters honest.

Cameron broadside has 7 capital weapons?   Okay, then lets add 5 AMS, 5 LPL, & 3 Gauss Rifles to that for a perfect 20.

The Aegis blueprints from Living Legends show that it actually had a full Marine Company of 90 Marines on board & spare quarters for a battalion of civilians as well.
But that isn't in the stats on the RS.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6717
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #22 on: 24 May 2017, 17:13:22 »
I'll second this, and add that every ship should have a fighter screen on board, with numbers dependent on size of ship, starting with at least a pair of squadrons for a corvette and getting more as the ship gets bigger.

I'm fine with a Vincent having just a single squadron of 6 fighters, but I do agree that it should go up quickly from there to the point that something like the Texas with its 40 & McKenna w/ its 50 are both short & should be at least a full 54 "Regiment/Fleet Aero Wing" in size.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #23 on: 24 May 2017, 17:40:50 »
HPG could be seen as a weakness in a battle fleet, since if someone sends you a message at the wrong time, it could cripple you and possibly a large portion of your battle group. The enemy could take advantage of that. It would be better to have the HPG on a non-combatant that isn't going to stay with the combat force. I'd put it on JumpShips or maybe a DropShip that wants to avoid the fight.

Vition2

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 628
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #24 on: 24 May 2017, 19:58:24 »
I imagine standard operating procedure regarding HPG use is to have them turned off the majority of the time, only turning them on for pre-planned periods of time and during an actual battle they'd be turned off well before hand.  We don't know how long it takes to boot them back up or shut them down, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was measured in minutes.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #25 on: 24 May 2017, 23:44:08 »
Can they be turned off like that? Or would they still act as a receiver enough for the interference to happen anyway?

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4089
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #26 on: 25 May 2017, 01:26:50 »
Well if its a mobile HPG then they are turned on and off. I'd also assume that having one active would be a significant power drain on the ships reactors too.

And yeah, not every BB needs one, but command ships sure as hell do.  I agree with upping the fighters to regiment size if needs be. Marines are a definite yes too.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2201
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #27 on: 25 May 2017, 08:40:45 »
HPG could be seen as a weakness in a battle fleet, since if someone sends you a message at the wrong time, it could cripple you and possibly a large portion of your battle group. The enemy could take advantage of that. It would be better to have the HPG on a non-combatant that isn't going to stay with the combat force. I'd put it on JumpShips or maybe a DropShip that wants to avoid the fight.
Um...that's not how it work. In the first place, the sender has to know EXACTLY where the mobile HPG would be to send a pulse to it. The mobile HPG simply let the ship sent a message out no matter where it is and it can pick up  HPG pulses only IF the ship is at preplanned spots for receiving scheduled HPG pulses.
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #28 on: 25 May 2017, 10:27:32 »
Um...that's not how it work. In the first place, the sender has to know EXACTLY where the mobile HPG would be to send a pulse to it. The mobile HPG simply let the ship sent a message out no matter where it is and it can pick up  HPG pulses only IF the ship is at preplanned spots for receiving scheduled HPG pulses.

Well if you have a mobile HPG, and can see the enemy ship that also has one, you do know exactly where it is. But that's a moot point, if marauder648 and Vition2 are right about being able to just turn it off.

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4089
Re: redesigning the sl navy
« Reply #29 on: 27 May 2017, 08:05:25 »
It makes sense really, turn them off during combat and when out of combat, have them on some kind of standby like a recive only and when you need to transmit, ramp up the power and fire a message off.  SL ships would have most certinally had the black box/hyperfaxes if they didn't have a HPG.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!