Author Topic: Warships with low armor  (Read 2807 times)

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3404
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #30 on: 11 April 2017, 20:01:45 »
Not sure I'm seeing the issue...pocket warships are the fast attack boats (like the PT and E boats of WW2, or the Pegasus-class hydrofoil or Komar or Osa-class missile boats of the 60's, 70's and 80's)...can they take out, or at least heavily damage, destroyers, cruisers or other warships? Yes...if they get lucky, or have overwhelming numbers...but one on one, there's no contest...

Nor should there be...

Ruger

You are thinking of the traditional PWS missile boats, we are discussing assault dropships that are surrogate warships.

You should read this thread from 2011: Have PWS's rendered lighter warships obsolescent?

Yes, it is somewhat long, but discusses the issues surrounding using super-large PWS against warships, both pro and con.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #31 on: 11 April 2017, 20:46:55 »
Capital scale equivalent; the Aesir/Vanir has 25 points of standard-scale SI, which translates as three whole points of capital-scale SI (single digit).

Ah thanks for clarifying that you were talking about single digit SI, because your first post said armor:

The armor, yes, but not the SI; since PWS SI is still at standard scale, they rarely have more than single-digit capital scale armor equivalent. Since they also have only four armor facings (versus the six of a warship), their armor will not last as long either.

I thought you were saying that because of their low SI they had single digit capital scale equivalent armor, which just wasn't true.

Isegrim? 21 standard = 3 Capital, Taihou? 30 standard = 3 capital. Single digits.

Besides the Castrum, what PWS has double-digit capital-scale equivalent SI?

Compare to warships in the modern environment; the Fox has 100 capital points of SI, the equivalent of one thousand points of standard-scale SI; it has more SI than most PWS have in both SI AND armor.

As I have pointed out in other threads, any ship that closes with a capital warship needs to be able to take it out in one turn and survive return fire. Range is a big thing; if the warship can engage your PWS before you can engage it, you are in trouble. Only the smallest, weakest, and/or demonstrably obsolete warship designs are vulnearable to the most powerful PWS that can be fielded (Vinnie, Zec, Carrack), anything larger has at least parity, and even larger classes can eat Castrums for breakfast.

The fox is probably the most heavily armored light warship, definitely not the average. But lets look at SI and armor values together and compare them to the damage those ships dish out:

Fox-240,000
SI: 100 capital
Heaviest Armor Facing: 70 capital
Max attack (FR/RBS/AR): 60 capital damage
Max with optional waypoint and bearings only capital missile rules: 64 capital damage

Castrum-100,000
SI: 15 capital
Heaviest Armor Facing: 131 capital
Max Attack (Nose/FR):  110
Max with optional waypoint and bearings only capital missile rules: 171
+Naval C3 and Quirks giving it more bonuses at range.

I would put my money on the castrum winning that matchup more often then not. Not only will the castrum be hitting SI on turn one, and getting the resulting crits, but the capital missiles will also be getting crits as well. The Fox would take 270 damage to destroy utterly, and that would take the castrum two turns to achieve, meanwhile the fox would need three turns to do the same to the castrum (without optional rules involved, it would be even at three turns each for total destruction). And the fox is the most heavily armored of the small warships.

Lets look at some other designs, other than ones you called out:

Impavido-490,000
SI: 50 capital
Heaviest Armor Facing: 55 capital
Max attack (FR/RBS/AR): 113 capital damage

Fredesa 180,000
SI: 40 capital
Heaviest Armor Facing: 40 capital
Max attack (Nose/FR): 82 capital damage

Inazuma-200,000
SI: 46 capital
Heaviest Armor Facing: 30 capital
Max attack (FR/RBS/AR): 87 capital damage

And some Pocket Warships:

Isegrim-8,500
SI: 2.1 capital
Heaviest Armor Facing: 67 capital
Max Attack (Nose/RW/LW): 52 capital damage

Tiamat-36,000
SI: 7.5 Capital
Heaviest Armor Facing: 81 Capital
Max Attack (Nose/FR): 107

The 8500 ton Isegrim is a little worse, but comparable to the Inezuma and Fredesa, ships twenty times it's size. A Tiamat would hammer those same two warships, with a mutually assured destruction in two rounds.

As it stands light warships should fear big pocket warships, and big warships should fear small pocket warships, but there is definitely a place for both types.

Of course if more ships took high SI or maxed out their armor (or even came close to it) like the fox does, this might be a different story.

Ruger

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2768
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #32 on: 11 April 2017, 22:32:27 »
You are thinking of the traditional PWS missile boats,

Actually, I'm really not...

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

sadlerbw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 917
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #33 on: 12 April 2017, 15:02:20 »
I'm not going to try to argue that all the PWS are on-par with warships for damage output. I mean, they pretty much fall into the category of 'things that are a Tiamat or Castrum' and 'everything else'. None of the 3075 stuff is all that dangerous unless it is being sneaky with nukes. '85 is slightly better, but can be a bit too reliant on missiles. The poor Vanir has to be be all but toothless in the Dark Age. The '85 ships generally have enough sub-capital weapons that they can hit back at warship ranges, but can't put up the same sort of numbers that real naval guns can. Standard weapons just don't have the range to respond equally, and even if you do manage to get into a decent range band for standard-scale weapons, well then the Warship can start adding its standard-scale weapons as well.

The Tiamat and Castrum have the capital range, and can put out the damage of a well-armed corvette, plus the armor to survive more than one turn of fire from a real warship. They actually have a legitimate shot at hurting smaller or lightly-armored warships. However, even these two don't compare to the firepower of anything but the lightly-armed corvettes. a Whirlwind or a Tatsumaki would wipe the floor with them.

It's just so strange to me that, in virtually every other way, Dropships are a noticable step down from warships...except armor. For whatever reason, canon dropships get to be tough little buggers, and many of the light and medium warships are pretty thin-skinned.

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3404
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #34 on: 13 April 2017, 20:07:11 »
I am familiar with these comparisons.

From: A thread embedded in the discussion I cited:

Quote
Smaller than a heavy cruiser:
(A=capital armour, SI=capital SI, Dmg=capital damage potential into one target in one turn)

Fox (A: 70/67/54/64, SI: 100, Dmg: 60+)
Impavido (A: 50/55/54/50, SI: 50, Dmg: 116+)
Suffren (A: 80/63/60/70, SI: 60, Dmg: 158+) + 5/8 thrust
Kyushu (A: 140/90/70/110, SI: 60, Dmg: 265+)
Fredasa (A: 40/30/30/35, SI: 40, Dmg: 79+) + 5/8 thrust
Vincent (A: 16/19/19/16, SI: 40, Dmg: 24+)
Whirlwind (A: 100/70/65/80, SI: 55, Dmg: 164+)
York (A: 120/100/100/120, SI: 60, Dmg: 192+)
Essex (A: 37/37/37/35, SI: 60, Dmg: 140+)
Lola III (A: 48/48/48/48, SI: 50, Dmg: 112+)
Zechetinu (A: 24/21/20/20, SI: 15, Dmg: 55+) + 5/8 thrust
Inazuma (A: 28/30/30/25, SI: 46, Dmg: 91)
Tatsumaki (A: 70/70/70/60, SI: 50, Dmg: 103+)
Dante (A: 100/90/90/70, SI: 50, Dmg: 250+) + 5/8 thrust
Eagle (A: 39/36/33/33, SI: 45, Dmg: 259+)
Carrack (A: 10/8/6/9, SI: 15, Dmg: 71+)

GI (A: 82/72/62, SI: 7, Dmg: 66+) + 5/8 thrust
Lak I (A: 101/101/101, SI: 17, Dmg: 173+) + 5/8 thrust
Lak II (A: 70/70/70, SI: 9, Dmg: 173+) + 5/8 thrust

Note: Only four armour facings on the PWS.
Thrust is mentioned because the ship with the higher thrust can dictate range.

I do not have my books with me, so I will cite you for the Castrum:

Quote
Castrum-100,000
SI: 15 capital
Heaviest Armor Facing: 131 capital
Max Attack (Nose/FR):  110
Max with optional waypoint and bearings only capital missile rules: 171
+Naval C3 and Quirks giving it more bonuses at range.

Keeping in mind that the Castrum has just 3/5 thrust, most warships have either parity or superiority.

We need 161 points of capital damage in one facing to kill a Castrum in its strongest facing (131 armor plus double SI, since SI damage is halved).

Kyushu, Whirlwind, York, Dante, and Eagle can potentially one-shot a Castrum. The Suffren gets an honorable mention, falling just thee cap short of the one-shot goal.

On the other hand, the Castrum can potentially one shot (with missiles): Impavido, Fredasa, Vinvcent, Essex, Lola III, Zec, Inazuma, Tatsumaki (just barely), Eagle, and Carrack.

Without capital missiles, the list is much smaller: Vincent, Zec, and Carrack.

These numbers do not take ranges into account, or maneuvering; if the battle is in a tiny board, there is not much difference, but when the combattants start the engagement 100 hexes apart, there is room to maneuver and keep ranges open.

Add to it the number of armor facings, and any PWS is at a distinct disadvantage against any moderately designed warship.

I love super-class PWS, but no matter how powerful, they will always have to take a back seat to real warships; a lot of mention is made that they produce savings since they do not have a jump drive, but you still need a jumpship to transport a Castrum, and unless it is a warship, it will be the weak point in the equation.



sadlerbw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 917
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #35 on: 13 April 2017, 22:44:38 »
Yeah, I admit PWS aren't warships. That list was interesting. It got me thinking, which warships are easier to one-shot than a castrum? It takes 146 capital-scale damage to burn through the toughest facing and SI on a castrum. The following warships take LESS damage to get through their toughest facing and SI, even with their SI halving damage:

Fredasa
Vincent
Tracker*
Vigilant*
Pinto*
Mako*
Bonaventure*
Sylvester*
Carrack*
Baron*
Carson*
Wagon wheel*
Eagle
Inazuma
Zechetinu

* extinct designs from tro3057

Now, three or four of those are transports or surveillance vessels and not really combatants, but most are, or were, legitimate warships. Furthermore, these ships are only tougher than the castrum on their best facing by 11 points or less:

Agamemnon
Lola *I, II*, and III
Naga*
Davion block I*
Nightwing*
Whirlwind (star league version)
Impavido
Essex

I know toughest-facing-plus-SI is not the whole story by far, but I still find it interesting. Of course, the castrum is the only dropship with enough armor to make these comparisons. The Tiamat is the next best armored, and it is only tougher than the transports and the Zec. Don't get me wrong, I'd take a real warship over a PWS if given the choice, I just think they are tougher than they get credit for.
« Last Edit: 13 April 2017, 22:46:21 by sadlerbw »

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #36 on: 13 April 2017, 23:41:29 »
These numbers do not take ranges into account, or maneuvering; if the battle is in a tiny board, there is not much difference, but when the combattants start the engagement 100 hexes apart, there is room to maneuver and keep ranges open.

Range favors the Castrum over the other designs listed, thanks to it's design quirks, and possibly naval C3 (if it has appropriate allies). Note the list of small warships it can one shot is a lot larger than the list of small warships that can one shot it.

I love super-class PWS, but no matter how powerful, they will always have to take a back seat to real warships; a lot of mention is made that they produce savings since they do not have a jump drive, but you still need a jumpship to transport a Castrum, and unless it is a warship, it will be the weak point in the equation.

If you are saying the "real warships" are the larger ones, then I completely agree. The Castrum matches or overpowers the small ones, but the larger ones wouldn't be bothered too much by a single Castrum. Castrums themselves are super expensive because of the massive dropship cost multiplier, so I wouldn't really want to field a force of multiple castrums against the larger warships, I would want smaller dropships, as you suggested, against the big ones. Dropships small and cheap enough that I wouldn't care that half of them are gonna die, because I would rather they die than the extremely expensive castrums.

As soon as the warships get big and powerful enough to one shot the castrums is the line where I would rather have the tiny dropships... or better yet, swarms of aerospace fighters. The castrums through, I would happily use to bully the small warships 2-3 times it's size. I'd love to be the captain of a Fox who was assigned a mix of castrums and titans for my six collars.

However, I wouldn't want to use the swarms of smaller dropships against things a single castrum could handle, simply because I would rather those crews not die taking down small warships that a castrum could have taken without nearly as much loss of life. Human waves of dropships have their place, but wastefully dying when they didn't need to isn't it.

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6735
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #37 on: 16 April 2017, 23:20:48 »
And do not underestimate the Aggie; its armor may be criminally thin, but properly used, it can be quite surprising; anybody remember the Aggie v. Fox + 5x Grand Inquisitor (PWS) battle some time back?

Edit: Found it.

Glad you found it, I was going to quote that battle.
I thought it was 5 Tiamats v/s a non-canon design, but still it goes to show that even a Glass Cannon large warship will make you pay dearly.


As for comparing the Castrum v/s canon WS. 
Honestly its just not a fair comparison.
The Castrum is one of the better designed dropships, not to mention the largest combat dropship ever.

Can it take out a Vincent, sure.
Can it take out a Vincent that someone redesigned intelligently with real cargo space instead of "support a SL Division from orbit" cargo space.
Unlikely.

IE.  There is only so much you can improve a DS, but canon WS can ALL be improved on a LOT.
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

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3404
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #38 on: 17 April 2017, 15:37:52 »
The point is, that the single most powerful canon PWS barely has parity with the weakest canon warships, and the only three designs that it completely pwns are either not considered true warships (Carrack), are obsolete beyond the bounds of reason (Vinnie), or are extremely poorly designed (Zec).

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #39 on: 17 April 2017, 18:33:52 »
and the only three designs that it completely pwns

I don't think this statement is accurate. There are at least fifteen warships a Castrum can destroy in a single turn (see sadlerbw's list). At least five of those are not extinct ships, and of those five only two are on your list of poorly designed warships. The number increases quite a bit if you add in warships that would put up a fight, but still probably lose to a Castrum.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3894
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #40 on: 17 April 2017, 20:42:49 »
Has anyone tried those fights? Every time someone tries the practical example the WarShip surprises.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #41 on: 18 April 2017, 00:36:33 »
I've done about 5 Warship vs Castrum fights, and the Castrums won 3 of them. 5 is hardly a good sample size for it though. It's hard to get people to do anything other than 'Mech fights. And as you've said others get the warships winning. The two I lost my Castrum to were a Tatsumaki which mostly I lost to areospace and small craft support rather than the warship itself, and a Fredesa that got close... and had a lot of fighter support. Despite my screens and AMS, they were able to hit me with a few EWAS missiles, and that made a huge difference. The Fredesa itself spent most of it's time clearing my small craft from the field to make way for the fighters. Personally I don't think the Castrum's small craft make a very good screen against enemy fighters.


sadlerbw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 917
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #42 on: 18 April 2017, 01:07:15 »
First, I want to clarify, the list I made was of things that are easier to kill by coring through it's toughest armor facing than a Castrum, not things a Castrum can kill in one shot. That would have been a much shorter list! The Castrum isn't actually as crazy as you might think in terms of the damage it can put out in a turn. If you get the best angle from it, and the best range, you are putting out 76 capital damage. That isn't enough to one-shot much of anything but the super-weak transports. It stands out because of that massive armor, and the fact that it can put that 76 damage out in two different directions at once.

I have been messing around with these things in MegaMek, but I would hardly call it real testing. One bot spins around making evasive maneuvers and doesn't seem to know how to fire weapon bays, and the other can shoot, but never moves. So, I've been tossing some ships (both dropships and warships) on both sides, seeing how long it takes me to wipe them out, then switching the forces and doing it again. It is only minimally informative since point defense doesn't seem to work and the bot is brain dead, but is OK as a pure damage simulator. There is a definite gap between the Tiamat and Castrum, and everything else. They have enough armor to survive a couple hits from real capital weapons bays, whereas most everything else is lucky to survive one round of attention at medium capital range. They also hit hard enough to actually matter, even one-on-one, before they become clouds of expanding vapor. Against corvettes like Inazumas, Foxes, and Fredasas, the corvettes were often loosing all the armor on at least one facing before the big PWS went down. When going up against Destroyers though, the combined damage was just too much, and nothing could really take more than a turn of focused hate at medium range unless it plain got lucky. Of course, pitting two Destroyers against each other wasn't much less deadly!

In dropship vs. dropship combat though, the two big PWS's really stood out. They could take a serious beating and keep throwing out damage that would wilt other dropships. I imagine this only gets more obvious when Point Defense is actually doing something, as many of the next tier of assault dropships rely on missiles. The Vanir and Isegrim really, really need you to not shoot down their swarms of missiles to stay effective! Honorable mention goes to the Taihou. It was deadlier than I would have expected. That 28-capital-scale punch was a killer, and 600 points of nose armor was enough to let you stay pointed at whatever you needed dead.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #43 on: 18 April 2017, 01:33:05 »
First, I want to clarify, the list I made was of things that are easier to kill by coring through it's toughest armor facing than a Castrum, not things a Castrum can kill in one shot. That would have been a much shorter list!

Fair point. I didn't look at all of those myself.

The Castrum isn't actually as crazy as you might think in terms of the damage it can put out in a turn. If you get the best angle from it, and the best range, you are putting out 76 capital damage.

You seem to be discounting the improved heavy gauss rifle bays that hit a bit harder than the light subcapital cannons. Their long range is just shy of the start of capital scale medium range. They make a difference. With the castrum's improved long range targeting, they actually have an okay chance at that range. That adds 26 more capital damage to that 76. If you are like me, you use a lot of the optional rules, and when you add both waypoint launches and bearings only launches to the capital weapons, the other 8 AR-10s can fire at the same target, for another 32 capital damage (my figures earlier in the thread were off, for some reason I keep thinking killer whale missiles do 5 damage).

It is possible the scenarios I played in favored capital missiles too much. The other person also disregarded having small craft that could cover his warship as far as AMS goes, and that would make a large difference as well. With how common AMS has become, at least in the fluff, I suppose it is entirely reasonable that all 16 killer whale missiles could get shot down, and that would put the castrum at a serious disadvantage, it gets a lot of it's power from those. I guess I can see why it wouldn't match up as well, and file my victories with it under favorable conditions/inexperienced opponent.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3894
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #44 on: 18 April 2017, 06:42:38 »

In dropship vs. dropship combat though, the two big PWS's really stood out. They could take a serious beating and keep throwing out damage that would wilt other dropships. I imagine this only gets more obvious when Point Defense is actually doing something, as many of the next tier of assault dropships rely on missiles. The Vanir and Isegrim really, really need you to not shoot down their swarms of missiles to stay effective! Honorable mention goes to the Taihou. It was deadlier than I would have expected. That 28-capital-scale punch was a killer, and 600 points of nose armor was enough to let you stay pointed at whatever you needed dead.

Really? I don't mean to insult here but I am amazed  a Taihou can be underestimated. It is a far more effective ship killer than a Castrum and wears its heart very much on its sleeve.

Vanirs are AA platforms.

Isegrims should try and get into short range to use their missiles. Don't confuse heavy sub capital missiles for stand off capital missiles. The main risk is AMS throwing the missiles off target rather than destroying them outright.

I am curious about the use of the Fredasa against small craft. Seems a waste of its capital weapons.


Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #45 on: 18 April 2017, 09:04:18 »
I am curious about the use of the Fredasa against small craft. Seems a waste of its capital weapons.

I thought so too, but I think he just wanted to keep it alive, so he was trying to keep it out of the fight with he Castrum. He loaded down all of his aerospace fighters with ordnance, so they were hitting harder than one might have guessed. He used the naval lasers in AA mode though. I don't think he ever fired the NAC 40. The NAC 10s missed a lot, but he got lucky with them a couple times. He didn't destroy all of my small craft, but he did disrupt them enough that they were ineffective at countering what he was doing with the aerospace fighters.

sadlerbw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 917
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #46 on: 18 April 2017, 13:27:44 »
Yeah, I tried to leave the non-capital armaments out of things. Those iHGauss rifles are a good extra chunk of damage, but the other, smaller droppers weren't too far behind when you combined their best two facings. The way the Castrum has the secondaries laid out, you can't get more than one facing of those iHGauss on a target at the same time. With a Vanir, you can get two facings on the same target, and when add up all the large lasers, HAG's and ATM's, two facings on a Vanir is putting out a minimum of 16 cap-scale damage at long range. Admittedly it takes more bays so you won't threshold as much, and the Castrum is putting out 26. Ten capital damage is not a rounding error for sure, but I doubt it would make or break a fight. The capital-scale damage the Castrum puts out tended to erase most dropships before the gauss rifles really mattered.

Now, if the Isegrim gets you in the front quarter, it can lob out 20 cap-scale at long standard range from its secondaries, and if it lines you up right on the nose, it can put out 32, which is more than the Castrum. A Taihou could manage at least 24, but only at medium range. The Tiamat falls behind at only 13, but it doesn't matter much with the primary armament it has! Beyond that when you get down into stuff like Nagasawas, Nekohono'o's, and Arondights, you are looking at a different class of ships, and the just don't compete.

No insult taken about the Taihou. I just expected its range limitations to cause more of a problem than they did in PWS vs PWS fights. That nose armor and the speed gave it the ability to close without getting softened up too badly at long range. Also, I was running these things against the other big PWS's, so that 28-point punch was something you could survive for a couple turns with rolling and the amount of armor in play. Put it up against a Union or an Overlord, and it's a whole different story.

Anyway, I've been having fun just running through little exercises in MegaMek, but I really wish I had a better way to model PDW bays. I thought about looking at the combat logs and rolling things myself, but it slowed things down a ton. I know missiles are more powerful than they should be in these little mock battles, but don't really have a feel for HOW over-powered they are.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3894
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #47 on: 18 April 2017, 22:03:00 »
And there we learn a valuable lesson. In space you can close to any range you like at near will with 5/8 thrust or more. You can't block someone. All you can do is trail them and make their life uncomfortable.

Ships like the Taihou and Isegrim are all about getting very close. See those big MRMs on the Combine assaults? That's more than regional flavor. That's recognition that you won't hit an evading target at 20 hexes.

Nagasawas, Nekos, Arondights, and even Noruffs and Avengers are all part of the equation. A SCL Neko is essentially a Castrum at a fraction of the weight. Regular Nekos are about boarding spam. Arondights and Vanirs are AA. Noruffs, Avengers, and Achilles are pound for pound the most efficient assaults in the game.

From the perspective of the Republic the Castrum is simply fire support. Tiamats are the block of armour and SCCs to shove down someone's throat for ship kills with Dragus providing ECM and targeting data.

sadlerbw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 917
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #48 on: 19 April 2017, 13:53:16 »
Yeah, I did try a couple fights with the unholy trinity of Castrum, Tiamat II, and Dragau II. That was scary-effective. The Dragau didn't even need to shoot anyone, it just sat behind them and provided targeting data. Even a group of C3's Nekos didn't keep up. The two big boys pretty much wiped a Neko off the map each turn their guns connected.

When I originally read this thread and started messing around with fights, I was mostly looking at Dropships vs. Warships, but ultimately I think the Dropship vs. Dropship stuff has been more interesting. Even with light warship-level armor, the warships just start to pump out crazy amounts of damage that even other warships can't stand up to. The dropship-only fights, at least with jihad-or-later units, made much more sense and were more interesting. Now, the 3057 stuff is a bit wimpy, but in the TRO's since then there have actually been a nice mix of assault and PWS units that feel like they would really work without needing a huge swarm of fighters to back them up.

One thing that has been annoying the heck out of me though has been RAC bays. I don't know if I'm just having the worlds worst luck or what, but I can't seem to get more than about three turns out of one before it jams. Statistically, I should be able to make it four turns before my odds of a jam are over 50%! It makes Nagasawas a little bit risky. Actually, are you supposed to be able to un-jam RAC's on a dropship? I was never quite clear on that.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #49 on: 19 April 2017, 14:05:21 »
Actually, are you supposed to be able to un-jam RAC's on a dropship? I was never quite clear on that.

As far as I know you can, but I have no idea if you can in MegaMek, since I don't actually use it.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3894
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #50 on: 19 April 2017, 23:10:40 »
Yeah, I did try a couple fights with the unholy trinity of Castrum, Tiamat II, and Dragau II. That was scary-effective. The Dragau didn't even need to shoot anyone, it just sat behind them and provided targeting data. Even a group of C3's Nekos didn't keep up. The two big boys pretty much wiped a Neko off the map each turn their guns connected.


Hehe. Change your balance. The DC builds Nekos, Taihous, Achilles, Okinawas, and Vengeances. They have nothing that matches the mass of the Castrums and Tiamats but have very much superior ASF capacity.

Over a fleet squadron I would run a single Neko (SCL). It is your Raven equivalent. Support Swiss Army knife.
Two Taihous, two Achilles, and a Vengeance.

This is not equal to a Castrum squadron but it is more effective per ton. Keep similar ratios until you have a force that is equal. Add in some Roses for fluff.

Tactically you drown the baddies in fighters. Unleash the aerodynes on the Tiamats. Keep the Neko oit of SCC range in AA support. Keep the carriers and fuel trucks out of combat. With their thust rates the only threat should be Dragaus and they will be plastered in ASF. Have all Oozes out threatening boarding. That is a lot of chances to put troops on board and the DC has some good marine types.
With the Tiamats gone the Republic will have lost most of its bite. The chances of the support DropShips being run down by the Castrum are minimal so sit back and let the ASF do the work.

sadlerbw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 917
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #51 on: 20 April 2017, 23:04:59 »
two reasons I didn't do that: One, I found out I somehow got the development build of MegaMek and there is a bug that was crashing it every time a fighter squadron took damage...and I was NOT going to run that number of units individually! Two, I have some philosophical issues with the Zap Brannigan method of overloading the enemy's kill-counters with wave after wave of my own men! It just felt like the aerospace version of Savannah master spam. I actually thought about loading up a massive pile of Sholgar's with Anti-Ship missiles for a minute, but it just felt a bit cheesy. This isn't REAL war after all, so I'm only willing to put up with so much in the way of numbers imbalance. I don't debate the effectiveness of bringing something like 50-60 fighters and 10 or 12 small craft, which should be about what your fleet squadron has. It would certainly work. I just don't much like the idea of letting one side bring 70+ units and the other only gets less than 30, from a purely game perspective.

marauder648

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4131
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #52 on: 22 April 2017, 05:51:00 »
Basically the 3057 Warships (the SLDF ones) need to be re-done so they are not just monstrous amounts of cargo with guns and engines attached. The 'lost' ships at the back are fine but the earlier ones they need a complete re-working. 

I'd like to think I did a bit of that with http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55756.0  thanks to the amazing art from Plog and Shimmering sword, but the designs themselves need work. A lot of it.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6695
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #53 on: 22 April 2017, 06:30:23 »
I think WarShips with low armor might just be one of those things in BT, like DropShips having little to nor cargo space or the lack of scout/skirmish 'Mechs with long range weapons early on.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28798
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #54 on: 22 April 2017, 11:52:40 »
Out of curiosity, how many people in this thread have looked at low-armor ships and assumed them to be deathtraps, and how many have actually tried using them in a game, coupled with things like angle-of-attack modifiers, evasive movement, ECM, bracketing fire, bearings-launched missiles...to say nothing of how truly TERRIFYING a shop loaded with nothing but NACs and other cap weapons really is when facing fighters?

I'm honestly curious here.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
Battleforce Space is too bulky. I vote we start calling it BattleFace.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #55 on: 22 April 2017, 15:07:16 »
I have used most of those things, but my opponents have often been using older designs for fighters and small craft, which can drastically effect the effectiveness of capital missiles. And I've only done about 5 games with cannon ships in the current ruleset, so some of my experience is out-of-date. Another large portion of my experience comes from whole games where neither side is using a single cannon unit, so that isn't really as useful when looking at canon vs canon stuff.

I haven't applied this though:
Code: [Select]
how truly TERRIFYING a shop loaded with nothing but NACs and other cap weapons really is when facing fighters Fear isn't something that effects everyone the same, so I tend to leave it out, or leave it up to role playing.

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6735
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #56 on: 22 April 2017, 15:37:21 »
Out of curiosity, how many people in this thread have looked at low-armor ships and assumed them to be deathtraps, and how many have actually tried using them in a game, coupled with things like angle-of-attack modifiers, evasive movement, ECM, bracketing fire, bearings-launched missiles...to say nothing of how truly TERRIFYING a shop loaded with nothing but NACs and other cap weapons really is when facing fighters?

I'm honestly curious here.
I think a lot of people just see armor facing & compare it to broadside firepower of bigger ships & think something is useless because it will die quickly.
That Aggie fight that was done a while back & referenced above really changed my outlook on how nasty a gunboat can be if its not facing off against a McKenna.
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: 6735
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #57 on: 22 April 2017, 15:39:09 »
Fear isn't something that effects everyone the same, so I tend to leave it out, or leave it up to role playing.

I don't think he meant it as in you "fear" the ship.
He's pointing out what a big AC gunboat might not hit every time but when it does, whole squadrons disappear.
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

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28798
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #58 on: 22 April 2017, 16:00:17 »
Exactly that. I'm not talking about psychological fear, I'm talking about crushing fighters within the fist of an angry god.

BE THE ANGRY GOD.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
Battleforce Space is too bulky. I vote we start calling it BattleFace.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Warships with low armor
« Reply #59 on: 22 April 2017, 16:50:12 »
Exactly that. I'm not talking about psychological fear, I'm talking about crushing fighters within the fist of an angry god.

BE THE ANGRY GOD.

The times I fought my warship against fighters, it felt like trying to swat a swarm bees with a stick. Sure I could destroy a whole squadron if the capital weapons connected, but with how few times they connected, it didn't help much. Especially once they started getting EWAS missiles on me.

 

Register