Register Register

Author Topic: Balancing naval rules for interest  (Read 14497 times)

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 626
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #180 on: 06 January 2019, 08:14:21 »
I attempted to summarize the rules changes we are near consensus on in the OP. 
I think we're pretty well in agreement there.
monbvol, what did you think of attempt 9?

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 626
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #181 on: 06 January 2019, 08:54:49 »
Also, I wanted to directly reply to marcussmythe's question about the role of a CG under these rules.

In essence, the CG seems to be the premier nutcracker.  It's relatively easy to create a constellation of space stations that overwhelms fleets engaging in direct attack on a cost basis.  The missileer provides an answer to this since it can jump in far out, accelerate to low-c velocity for a week and fire 7 arcs of missiles with preprogrammed waypoints + bearings only launch, then jump out while remaining undetected.   The poor space station in orbit around the inhabited planet will be hit by many missiles with <1 minute of warning.  Since the primary defense against missiles is provided by fighter/smallcraft many of these will get through and cause quadruple damage.

You can also crack a space station with some warning at lower speeds.  Just launch missiles, accelerate a little bit, launch missiles again, accelerate, launch, etc... timing everything so all missiles hit in the same round. 

Obviously, a CG is also potentially effective against enemy warships that forswear or forsake sufficient point defense.  Since "sufficient point defense" tends to require smallcraft/fighters operating around a defense-in-depth paradigm, clever maneuvering including mid-fight jumps could be effective. 

I'd sort-of like to see a CG in an antifighter role, but that seems invalid under attempt 9 both because fighter point defense can squelch missiles and because the missiles simply don't do enough damage at a 10:1 ratio. 

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #182 on: 06 January 2019, 11:21:49 »
I believe I said Arrows. All the other nukes do more damage than their conventional counterparts. Arrows to less. That makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense if you really understand how a nuke primarily does it's damage.

Plus Arrow IVs have to be modified in some way to be able to target Warships as their standard or air launched versions cannot attack Warships.  The only options I see are the Air to Air Arrow and Anti-ship Missile.  Both lose the AE quality so both are clearly changing their warheads and changing how they do damage as a result.  Both are also considered Capital Missiles for what ever point defense rules are in effect.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #183 on: 07 January 2019, 00:31:30 »
I attempted to summarize the rules changes we are near consensus on in the OP.  monbvol, what did you think of attempt 9?

Meant to get back to this sooner.  I think depending on some answers about Advanced Point Defense and Capital Missiles it could be workable.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #184 on: 07 January 2019, 02:46:30 »
So how does the current attempt affect capital weapons used against dropships?
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #185 on: 07 January 2019, 05:22:22 »
It makes plenty of sense if you really understand how a nuke primarily does it's damage.

Plus Arrow IVs have to be modified in some way to be able to target Warships as their standard or air launched versions cannot attack Warships.  The only options I see are the Air to Air Arrow and Anti-ship Missile.  Both lose the AE quality so both are clearly changing their warheads and changing how they do damage as a result.  Both are also considered Capital Missiles for what ever point defense rules are in effect.

I see nothing that says that Arrows cannot target warships. What I do see is that they do standard scale damage equaling 2 points of capital damage and have an automatic chance of a critical hit. Their not doing AE damage is a reflection of the scale in range.   The only difference I see between nuke and non nuke Arrows is that nukes weigh a lot more but that should mean they'd have more kinetic energy upon impact. So I still don't see why nukes do less damage than non nukes.

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 626
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #186 on: 07 January 2019, 07:29:50 »
So how does the current attempt affect capital weapons used against dropships?
No effect.
Meant to get back to this sooner.  I think depending on some answers about Advanced Point Defense and Capital Missiles it could be workable.
Thanks.  My experience here is that rules questions may take quite awhile.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #187 on: 07 January 2019, 11:42:17 »
I see nothing that says that Arrows cannot target warships. What I do see is that they do standard scale damage equaling 2 points of capital damage and have an automatic chance of a critical hit. Their not doing AE damage is a reflection of the scale in range.   The only difference I see between nuke and non nuke Arrows is that nukes weigh a lot more but that should mean they'd have more kinetic energy upon impact. So I still don't see why nukes do less damage than non nukes.

Unmodified Arrow IVs do not have an Aerospace range.  Thus they cannot be targeted at Warships.

Air to Air Arrows and Anti-Ship Missiles can target ground units.  They still do not get the AE quality if doing so.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #188 on: 09 January 2019, 04:20:25 »
Unmodified Arrow IVs do not have an Aerospace range.  Thus they cannot be targeted at Warships.

Air to Air Arrows and Anti-Ship Missiles can target ground units.  They still do not get the AE quality if doing so.


Strategic Operations page 97.
[quoteArrow IV Missiles: Arrow IV missiles are treated exactly like
capital missiles, except that in place of capital-scale damage,
use standard-scale damage, giving an Arrow IV missile 20
points of standard-scale armor.][/quote]

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #189 on: 09 January 2019, 11:47:48 »

Quote from: Strategic Operations page 97.
Arrow IV Missiles: Arrow IV missiles are treated exactly like
capital missiles, except that in place of capital-scale damage,
use standard-scale damage, giving an Arrow IV missile 20
points of standard-scale armor.


I'll be honest I can see why you think those rules mean that unmodified Arrow IVs can be used against Warships but that's not what is going on there.

It's just the game designers giving a way to treat Arrow IVs as the missiles they are.

After all keep in mind unmodified Arrow IVs cannot be used in Surface to Orbit fire, can only be fired from a unit in flight if it is the air launched version, and still has no Aerospace range even then.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #190 on: 09 January 2019, 18:02:19 »


I'll be honest I can see why you think those rules mean that unmodified Arrow IVs can be used against Warships but that's not what is going on there.

It's just the game designers giving a way to treat Arrow IVs as the missiles they are.

After all keep in mind unmodified Arrow IVs cannot be used in Surface to Orbit fire, can only be fired from a unit in flight if it is the air launched version, and still has no Aerospace range even then.


They can't be used for Surface to Orbit fire because they don't have the range. They also don't have ranges in space as they use bombing rules.

They also would have been one of the few Arrow IV types available during the Star League.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #191 on: 09 January 2019, 19:03:05 »
Okay I'll admit I missed the bombing rules and you really should have cited those not the Advanced Point Defense rules but the point still stands nukes suck in space.  Really bad.  To the point that you are better off using other means.

But I'll say it again.  Battletech is being really generous to a Type Ib by allowing it to do 1 Capital damage when failing to penetrate.  It is only a 500 ton Warhead after all.  That's a baby nuke.  Super low end tactical scale.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #192 on: 10 January 2019, 04:21:06 »
Okay I'll admit I missed the bombing rules and you really should have cited those not the Advanced Point Defense rules but the point still stands nukes suck in space.  Really bad.  To the point that you are better off using other means.

But I'll say it again.  Battletech is being really generous to a Type Ib by allowing it to do 1 Capital damage when failing to penetrate.  It is only a 500 ton Warhead after all.  That's a baby nuke.  Super low end tactical scale.

I've been sighting rules as things come up. Damage see X rules. Range see Y.

And I get nukes aren't going to do as much damage in space as they would in air. I get that. But I don't believe 500 tons of TNT smacking into a ships hull is going to do more damage than its equivalent nuke. At minimum the damage should be the same. The problem is not only do we not have that but we have weapons doing more damage than nukes with less explosive.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #193 on: 10 January 2019, 11:06:42 »
500 tons of TNT probably would be pretty bad in space too but a shaped charge using something like semtex probably be very much more effective.

Or delivering a pure kintetic impact that works out to the same 500 tons of TNT.  Since most Battletech space born weapons that are really damaging are either explicitly using kinetic impacts it really shouldn't be that surprising that you need big nukes to compete.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #194 on: 11 January 2019, 02:44:18 »
500 tons of TNT probably would be pretty bad in space too but a shaped charge using something like semtex probably be very much more effective.

Or delivering a pure kintetic impact that works out to the same 500 tons of TNT.  Since most Battletech space born weapons that are really damaging are either explicitly using kinetic impacts it really shouldn't be that surprising that you need big nukes to compete.

That's just it. Arrow IVs aren't changed. So why do they do more damage than their nuke counterparts? That's what I don't understand.

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 626
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #195 on: 11 January 2019, 08:11:09 »
Two things of note:
(a) The EO Arrow IV weighs 1 ton, 5x more than the baseline Arrow IV as per TO page 414.   It's not clear that you can put a type I nuke into an air launched Arrow IV because as Arrow IV ammo, it also weighs 5x more than normal.
(b) The disparity between a 1 ton conventional bomb doing 20 points of standard damage and a mininuke doing 1 capital damage supports the thesis that a point of capital damage should mean more than 10 points of standard damage.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #196 on: 11 January 2019, 11:39:17 »
I had glossed over that tidbit myself, that the air launched Arrow IV is by definition modified.

Despite the AE quality there could be a lot of abstracted/unstated modifications that can explain why it does a consistent 2 Capital damage.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #197 on: 12 January 2019, 10:33:44 »
I blame lazy writers and insufficient communication.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #198 on: 12 January 2019, 12:23:20 »
It doesn't quite feel right to call it lazy writing but unfortunately that is what it comes down to doesn't it?

As much as there may have been directives handed down and the aerospace portion of the game is to take a back seat to the ground game there could have been a surprisingly small number of changes made to make a more interesting and fun game that isn't so easy to abuse/exploit.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #199 on: 12 January 2019, 12:55:29 »
Two things of note:
(a) The EO Arrow IV weighs 1 ton, 5x more than the baseline Arrow IV as per TO page 414.   It's not clear that you can put a type I nuke into an air launched Arrow IV because as Arrow IV ammo, it also weighs 5x more than normal.
(b) The disparity between a 1 ton conventional bomb doing 20 points of standard damage and a mininuke doing 1 capital damage supports the thesis that a point of capital damage should mean more than 10 points of standard damage.

Increased weight doesn't mean that the nuke is 5x bigger. Just heavier. It also has the same range so it didn't change there.

20 points of standard damage equals 2 points of capital damage. And to me the nuke should do more than that. Not less.




monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #200 on: 12 January 2019, 17:54:48 »
And it does when there is an atmosphere.

A lot more.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #201 on: 13 January 2019, 13:37:45 »
We're talking about space though.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #202 on: 13 January 2019, 14:38:54 »
The point has clearly been reached, passed, and reached again where you are arguing in circles and not going anywhere, argumentative or otherwise. I believe by now we could have a moderator split of "nukes in space" into it's own topic and we'd cut off a third of this thread.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #203 on: 13 January 2019, 14:55:26 »
Fair point UnLimiTeD.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #204 on: 13 January 2019, 23:29:38 »
 :thumbsup:

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7999
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #205 on: 14 January 2019, 23:08:45 »
How else do you make popcorn in space without nukes?  ;)

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016