Register Register

Author Topic: Balancing naval rules for interest  (Read 13614 times)

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #60 on: 23 December 2018, 19:45:53 »
So is my understanding, but a warship mine-launcher is a relatively light weapon, and if you're retreating from incoming fighters, even at abysmal thrust, you can probably layer a few hundred hexes with them. That's bound to cause some attrition.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10963
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #61 on: 23 December 2018, 19:59:33 »
I should have clarified that I was referring to the analysis thread that was linked earlier.

Advanced Point Defense just renders Capital Missiles impotent with no rolls and no choices needing to be made all too easily.

Just to clarify because not everyone realizes under Total Warfare rules AMS actually cannot intercept Capital Missiles(Total Warfare page 130).  It actually requires Advanced Point Defense from Strategic Operations.

It becomes a choice and a risk under Attacking Capital Missiles if it is considered an offensive attack and keeps AMS intact in it's role against even Capital Missiles.  To me that seems like better game design.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #62 on: 23 December 2018, 20:20:13 »
What does the design space look like if we keep the 10:1 ratio but set -all- standard weapons (no matter how many in a bay) to doing zero damage against capital armor (I like letting them wreck internals).

Of course, as illustrated, fighter-borne ASMs are still a cataclysmic threat, that seems to required the optional advanced point defense rule to handle.  But that rule obviates ship-borne launchers at a trivial cost.  So instead, let the fighter carried ASMs do 1 point only to ships.  This means a 700 fighter strike package bearing 1400 ASMs has a maximum damage of 1400 and an expected damage closer to 700 - which is still A LOT, but survivable once better armors come along - which they will have done, if fighters are carrying ASMs.

So, proposal:

1.)  Capital Weapons effect non-capital armor and IS at 10:1 (as per standard)

2.)  Non-capital weapons effect capital IS at 1:10, but cannot harm capital armor. (Rules change)

3.)  Fighter carried ASMs deal 1 point of capital scale damage. (Rules change)

4.)  No optional rule for AMS. (Forcing use of standard rule).




Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 625
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #63 on: 23 December 2018, 23:16:41 »
So is my understanding, but a warship mine-launcher is a relatively light weapon, and if you're retreating from incoming fighters, even at abysmal thrust, you can probably layer a few hundred hexes with them. That's bound to cause some attrition.
Essentially, you can force an incoming fighter swarm to have 6 fighters face 5*Margin_of_Failure damage per hex they traverse.  It's something, but it would take a very long time for the damage to add up enough on a single fighter to take it out.
Advanced Point Defense just renders Capital Missiles impotent with no rolls and no choices needing to be made all too easily.
I think this is correct for multifire AMS, but I'm skeptical about the rest of Advanced Point Defense based on the analysis here which shows you can't effectively defend against massed ASMs without multifire AMS.  In any case, I'm more accepting of the entire missile category being marginalizable.   By nature, missile weapons often do significantly more damage than anything else so the rules make for a double-or-nothing nature which differentiates from other weapon classes, at least in a design game.  Tactically, there is always the question of whether or not you should put your point defense into point defense mode which can lead to some high stakes decisions as a battle closes. 

2.)  Non-capital weapons effect capital IS at 1:10, but cannot harm capital armor. (Rules change)
3.)  Fighter carried ASMs deal 1 point of capital scale damage. (Rules change)
4.)  No optional rule for AMS. (Forcing use of standard rule).
One thing that I like about 2) compared to attempt 6 is that the standard weapons do more damage to capital IS than armor, while attempt 6 requires 200 points of standard scale damage to affect capital IS and 100 points of standard damage to affect capital armor. 

Nerfing ASMs to 1 point of capital scale damage definitely helps with a more realistic notion of damage.

By 4, do you just mean that AMS can only fire once doing 3 standard damage to missiles?  Or 1.5? (Is the "standard rule" advanced point defense sans AMS? Or is it the TW rule?)

Looking at the desiderata here these rules don't seem to handle the Miraborg incident (1).  The also make jumpships immune to ASF without ASMs and assault dropships without capital weapons.

The removal of multifire AMS makes carriers more desirable in a defensive role but the combination of (2) and (3) make carriers less desirable in an offensive role.  Comparing, a 600Kton ASF carrier can potentially bring up to 648*3=1944 ASMs to the party while a Missileer can bring 154 Killer Whales.  The KWs are killable with 5544 small lasers while the ASMs are killable with 5832 small lasers so if a warship carries 3 regiments of fighters, it can both defend against missile attacks and finish off warships damaged by naval weapons.  Possibly, you could get by with just 2 regiments of fighters, but probably not less than that because the Missileer (who has 10 rounds) will otherwise win.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #64 on: 23 December 2018, 23:33:51 »
Fighters can do many other things, with greater flexibility, and at longer ranges, than capital missiles.  Im okay with a CV being moderately inferior to a CG as a straight up combatant.

As for Tyra Miraborg, Im willing to let her go in the name of making the game work.  If fighter ramming was a good way to kill warships, then we would see fighters used as anti-ship weapons all the time - if necessary, with drone controls.  We dont see that.

Fluff is fluff, crunch is crunch, and Ive never felt it necessary to fiddle with the rules to allow for Morgan Kell’s ghostmech.  File Tyra under ‘she got lucky and the Clans got arrogant and had their command staff on an observation deck outside the armor belt’ and go on.

As for point defense weapons or AMS vs missiles - Im perfectly happy to just not let them shoot at incoming missiles, or only at nukes.  Missiles, as Ive said before, are actually pretty mediocre even in the absence of point defense.  Waypoint and bearings only and the like help - but a missile boat that goes light enough on ammo to make missiles worthwhile lives in terror of shooting itself dry - and once youve got 10+ rounds per tube, you might as well have mounted NPPCs.
« Last Edit: 23 December 2018, 23:37:55 by marcussmythe »

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10963
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #65 on: 24 December 2018, 00:50:44 »
Reading through Bandit Queen's questions in addition to yours about Capital Missiles and Advanced Point Defense is actually making me inclined to want to wait until we get answers to said questions because the answers to all those questions can really change the dynamics of either Advanced Point Defense and Attacking Capital Missiles.

What does the design space look like if we keep the 10:1 ratio but set -all- standard weapons (no matter how many in a bay) to doing zero damage against capital armor (I like letting them wreck internals).

Of course, as illustrated, fighter-borne ASMs are still a cataclysmic threat, that seems to required the optional advanced point defense rule to handle.  But that rule obviates ship-borne launchers at a trivial cost.  So instead, let the fighter carried ASMs do 1 point only to ships.  This means a 700 fighter strike package bearing 1400 ASMs has a maximum damage of 1400 and an expected damage closer to 700 - which is still A LOT, but survivable once better armors come along - which they will have done, if fighters are carrying ASMs.

So, proposal:

1.)  Capital Weapons effect non-capital armor and IS at 10:1 (as per standard)

2.)  Non-capital weapons effect capital IS at 1:10, but cannot harm capital armor. (Rules change)

3.)  Fighter carried ASMs deal 1 point of capital scale damage. (Rules change)

4.)  No optional rule for AMS. (Forcing use of standard rule).

I have no objection to 1 and 2.  3 I wouldn't go that far but can be persuaded.  4 is more problematic than the comparative lack of damage of Capital Missiles.  So I'm still in favor of having a way of shooting them down but it does need to be less certain than Advanced Point Defense and just mounting enough AMS, ammo, and heat sinks.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4373
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #66 on: 24 December 2018, 04:19:56 »
Okay. I'm interested in this, but I'm mot in a position to read all of it in one sitting, now that I've found it. But, I will!

That said, upon reading some of the first page, I have a suggestion.  Forgive me if someone brought this up.

It strikes me that Fighter Craft and standard weapons are pin-point weapons.  Warships are huge. I don't care how mobile you are, you're not spreading all that damage out over a kilometer cubed of hull.

So, instead of having fighters light weapons doing x amount of damage, let them act like how Armor Piercing AC munitions function in the ground game.  Or how Tandem Charged Warheads worked.  The damage a fighter/dropper does, regardless of strength, is one point of armor damage. But, they get to potentially threshold, and the total damage dedicated to the attack is collated and used as a modifier to the result, which is also modified by the threshold value for an item on a big ship*.

I think that fighters/droppers against warships have to get inside point blank range (IE - occupy the same hex) in order to make these attacks. Against other fighters/droppers, they can engage at range as normal. But, by doing so, they can pick and choose effects to go after.

If we were to redesign warships, I'd strongly recommend that the total threshold value for a facing be split up among whatever items and bays can be struck on that facing. As I said, there's a lot of volume in a ship, especially a jumper or warship.  They should be operating under the space version of mobile structures.  (I actually took the time to map out how a spheroid dropper might break up armor locations and structure if it were mapped in 30 meter chunks. I was inspired by how a dropper looks when grounded on the ground map. It stands to reason each of those hexes should only take so much damage, instead of going after the entire side before breaching. A Warship aught to be no different.)

With those restrictions, suddenly, dedicated naval weapons have the range to reach out and do damage against another warship.  All light weapons would have to act like point defense against the bigger ships.

If you block out a warship and give it multiple locations that can be destroyed without completely crippling the ship, much like BattleMechs versus tanks or Battle Armor, it might actually make for a much more interesting game.



It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #67 on: 24 December 2018, 09:03:08 »
Fighters can do many other things, with greater flexibility, and at longer ranges, than capital missiles.  Im okay with a CV being moderately inferior to a CG as a straight up combatant.

As for Tyra Miraborg, Im willing to let her go in the name of making the game work.  If fighter ramming was a good way to kill warships, then we would see fighters used as anti-ship weapons all the time - if necessary, with drone controls.  We dont see that.

Fluff is fluff, crunch is crunch, and Ive never felt it necessary to fiddle with the rules to allow for Morgan Kell’s ghostmech.  File Tyra under ‘she got lucky and the Clans got arrogant and had their command staff on an observation deck outside the armor belt’ and go on.
But fighter ramming is a good way to kill warships.
If you're willing to pay 3-10 million per 50 ton missile, requiring a one-shot, 150 ton launcher, with either fanatical suicidal pilots that are available in limited quantities, or high tech drone controls that spike the cost further while being horribly susceptible to ECM, you ought to get some result out of that. Whether it's a sensible way of doing things.... eh.

One musing of mine: If we assume that fighters mostly perform surgical strikes - warships get little armour per ton because they actually get a lot of armour per ton, but spread over a large area in a very abstracted game, and fighters would have to repeatedly hit a small area while an NAC can just hit all of it - wouldn't that be the space equivalent of a called shot?
If so, I'd just have all fighter weapons, and standard weapons on warships, deal half damage to capital armour, and then require targeting numbers that make it difficult for regular pilots to actually hit. Say, a 2/3/3/4 penalty at E/L/M/S range, to be raised by max 1 when stacking with ECM.
Could be fluffed as multiple fighters coordinating their fire on one spot of perceived importance. That would allow fighters to still hit jumpships and non-military stations, which tend to not move very much and won't bother the pilots with distracting counter fire. In high speed engagements, instead of highly multiplying the damage, the to-hit numbers could just be lowered - more for ballistics, obviously.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #68 on: 24 December 2018, 09:13:20 »
But fighter ramming is a good way to kill warships.
If you're willing to pay 3-10 million per 50 ton missile, requiring a one-shot, 150 ton launcher, with either fanatical suicidal pilots that are available in limited quantities, or high tech drone controls that spike the cost further while being horribly susceptible to ECM, you ought to get some result out of that. Whether it's a sensible way of doing things.... eh.

One musing of mine: If we assume that fighters mostly perform surgical strikes - warships get little armour per ton because they actually get a lot of armour per ton, but spread over a large area in a very abstracted game, and fighters would have to repeatedly hit a small area while an NAC can just hit all of it - wouldn't that be the space equivalent of a called shot?
If so, I'd just have all fighter weapons, and standard weapons on warships, deal half damage to capital armour, and then require targeting numbers that make it difficult for regular pilots to actually hit. Say, a 2/3/3/4 penalty at E/L/M/S range, to be raised by max 1 when stacking with ECM.
Could be fluffed as multiple fighters coordinating their fire on one spot of perceived importance. That would allow fighters to still hit jumpships and non-military stations, which tend to not move very much and won't bother the pilots with distracting counter fire. In high speed engagements, instead of highly multiplying the damage, the to-hit numbers could just be lowered - more for ballistics, obviously.

Given that 50 ton dedicated anti-ship missiles, consisting of nothing but blam and the computer/sensors/armor/short burn engine to get that blam to do its job, are one a good day questionable as anti-ship weapons...  I can’t justify fighters, a much more complex machine that has to do many many different jobs, being better at the ONLY job ASMs have than the ASM.

Ive tried every way I know how to let standard scale weapons do something, without dominating.  I cant find one. 

Im dealing with the following facts:

3 BBs of 1MT each cost about the same as 2 CVs of the same size, along with 2000 fighters - which is about as pure a carrier you can build.

If you can come up with a set of rules that allows those 3BBs to fight against those 2000 fighters without being casually wiped out - while letting the fighters standard scale weapons do any damage at all - I will be happy to use them.  I have not been able to do so.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #69 on: 24 December 2018, 09:41:25 »
I personally think a to-hit chance of under 17% coupled with 20/1 conversion does a decent enough job at that.
In an actual system wide game, I think the possibility to just maneuver around to make fighters waste their fuel already helps blunting the imminent danger somewhat. Assuming you have sufficient patience.
What absolutely must be ensured is that capital weapons still have a crit chance against capital ships. Their damage clearly doesn't cut it.
Also, in our deceased navy game, I couldn't help but notice that we did have to invest money into shipyards, yet not into fighter fabrication nor crew academies. One would assume that a faction that doesn't build up large capacities for fighter production would in turn have larger ships, which are more cost efficient.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #70 on: 24 December 2018, 10:28:33 »
I personally think a to-hit chance of under 17% coupled with 20/1 conversion does a decent enough job at that.
In an actual system wide game, I think the possibility to just maneuver around to make fighters waste their fuel already helps blunting the imminent danger somewhat. Assuming you have sufficient patience.
What absolutely must be ensured is that capital weapons still have a crit chance against capital ships. Their damage clearly doesn't cut it.
Also, in our deceased navy game, I couldn't help but notice that we did have to invest money into shipyards, yet not into fighter fabrication nor crew academies. One would assume that a faction that doesn't build up large capacities for fighter production would in turn have larger ships, which are more cost efficient.

Hmm.  2000  fighters at 20:1 is prob 2 damage per fighter, for 4k total.  At a mere 10% hit chance, thats 400 per turn - and fighters will always get their choice of angle.

I dont see 3 BBs cutting down fighters fast enough.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #71 on: 24 December 2018, 11:23:46 »
What absolutely must be ensured is that capital weapons still have a crit chance against capital ships. Their damage clearly doesn't cut it.

Disagree.  Its pretty easy to put together a 1.25 MT BB 2/3 with 40 HNPPCs out the broadside.  40 HNPPCs is potentially 600 damage - which will badly maul an equivalent ship in the standard armor era - and even a Leviathan doesnt WANT to take 600 to a facing.  One you start looking at squadron or fleet level battle, your crippling or killing one or more ships a round, even at maximum range, with that sort of firepower.  Switching out for big NACs can double that firepower, at the cost of some reach (whether or not this is a good trade depends on other factors, such as number of engaged units, starting ranges and velocities, etc.)

Massed Subcapital or even Standard Scale fires run into a really nasty fire control wall... where that wall lives depends on the size of the ship, speeds, and starting conditions.  That said, Im not convinced that even in the core rules of 10:1 that massed standard weapons are decisive in a fleet engagement situation - the range advantage means that the ‘big gun’ ships start killing the ‘small gun’ ships outside their ability to reply.  Further, a focus on small guns leaves you catastrophically vulnerable to the ship with lonner range weapons and equal or greater thrust.

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 625
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #72 on: 24 December 2018, 12:23:41 »
I put attempt 6 and attempt 7 into the OP.

As for point defense weapons or AMS vs missiles - Im perfectly happy to just not let them shoot at incoming missiles, or only at nukes. 
Allowing shooting only at nukes seems technologically incongruent---you really expect that non-nuclear and nuclear missiles are subject to the same point defense.   Allowing no shooting at missiles means (a) that nuclear weapons are super dominant (b) that capital missiles are dominant.  To see (b), note that you can create a 600Kton warship and use bearings only launch to effective bring 219 to bear at extreme range with a to-hit of 5=4+2(facing)+1(ECM)-2(Barracuda) leaving 182 hitting and doing 364 capital damage.  HNPPCs have a to-hit of 14=4+1(facing)+6(range)+3(ECM).      Even with advanced armors, it seems inevitable that the Barracuda missileer kills a couple HNPPC warships before running dry.

Reading through Bandit Queen's questions in addition to yours about Capital Missiles and Advanced Point Defense is actually making me inclined to want to wait until we get answers to said questions because the answers to all those questions can really change the dynamics of either Advanced Point Defense and Attacking Capital Missiles.
Yeah, sounds reasonable.
So I'm still in favor of having a way of shooting them down but it does need to be less certain than Advanced Point Defense and just mounting enough AMS, ammo, and heat sinks.
You could make point defense stochastic by declaring that each point defense weapon has a 1-in-<n> chance of killing the capital missile where n = capital damage * 5 / point defense damage.  This provides stochasticity while still providing similar levels of bulk defense as current.

So, instead of having fighters light weapons doing x amount of damage, let them act like how Armor Piercing AC munitions function in the ground game.  Or how Tandem Charged Warheads worked.  The damage a fighter/dropper does, regardless of strength, is one point of armor damage. But, they get to potentially threshold, and the total damage dedicated to the attack is collated and used as a modifier to the result, which is also modified by the threshold value for an item on a big ship*.
There are two issues here:
(1) Fighters doing 1 capital damage each is to much when we are talking about a 600K ton warship carrying 6 regiments of fighters (648).
(2) The bonus chance of critical hits goes the other direction, making fighters even more deadly.

But fighter ramming is a good way to kill warships.
W.r.t. ramming, the rules already make this rare since you need to:
(a) End movement in the same hex at a significant closing velocity.
(b) Succeed on a 'nerve' roll (1-in-12)
(c) Win an opposed control roll.  This step makes drone fighters unable to ram by default in the presence of warship ECM.

With that said, the damage from ramming is to high as-is.  Miraborg's 65 ton Shilone does 63 standard damage = 6 capital damage hitting after 1 round of max thrust.  A Killer Whale should hit for 50*5=250 standard damage = 25 capital damage from kinetic impact alone using the standard ramming rules.   Under attempt 6, the Killer Whales kinetic damage is just 2 capital and the Shilone has to use max thrust for 2 rounds in a row to do 1 capital damage.

One musing of mine: If we assume that fighters mostly perform surgical strikes - warships get little armour per ton because they actually get a lot of armour per ton, but spread over a large area in a very abstracted game, and fighters would have to repeatedly hit a small area while an NAC can just hit all of it - wouldn't that be the space equivalent of a called shot?
There is already a space version of called shot (SO page 100) which imposes a +4 penalty to hit.   You'll only use this option at short range, so I expect it's roughly equivalent to what you laid out.

Ive tried every way I know how to let standard scale weapons do something, without dominating.  I cant find one. 
Take a look at attempt 6---I think it satisfies this.

3 BBs of 1MT each cost about the same as 2 CVs of the same size, along with 2000 fighters - which is about as pure a carrier you can build.
10 regiments of fighters takes 30 minutes to launch even with all 18 bay doors dedicated to fighters.   They also take 2.5 hours to recover.  The fighters need to carry fuel for thrust 5 over the 2.5 hour duration or the maneuverability of the CV will be compromised.  That's 9.375 tons.   Plus, you'll want some tonnage for the ASF's mission.  This isn't impossible but you are running into significant compromises---the CV goes slower, the fighters reduce their warload, you switch to smallcraft, you are more easily forced to abandon fighters, etc...
If you can come up with a set of rules that allows those 3BBs to fight against those 2000 fighters without being casually wiped out - while letting the fighters standard scale weapons do any damage at all - I will be happy to use them.  I have not been able to do so.
Under attempt 6, the standard scale weapons cause a point of capital damage if they can inflict 100 standard scale damage to a single facing in a single turn.   This is not really possible with an ASF using 3025/Age of War tech.  With SL tech it's probably not possible?  With late IS tech, it's certainly possible between AAA or RL-10 external ordnance and onboard weapons, however it's not likely.  With clan tech (i.e. mass use of (improved) heavy medium lasers) it's possible to threaten capital damage on a sustained basis.   At this point though, screen launchers start destroying fighter swarms in wholesale lots.

Massed Subcapital or even Standard Scale fires run into a really nasty fire control wall... where that wall lives depends on the size of the ship, speeds, and starting conditions.  That said, Im not convinced that even in the core rules of 10:1 that massed standard weapons are decisive in a fleet engagement situation - the range advantage means that the ‘big gun’ ships start killing the ‘small gun’ ships outside their ability to reply.  Further, a focus on small guns leaves you catastrophically vulnerable to the ship with lonner range weapons and equal or greater thrust.
Smart carriers launch their ASF and then stay beyond extreme range for the duration of the engagement so the only question is whether or not the ASF kill the BBs or not.

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 625
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #73 on: 24 December 2018, 13:32:59 »
even at maximum range, with that sort of firepower. 
I'm skeptical about this.   A to-hit of 15=4(base)+6(extreme)+2(side)+3(ECM) suggests you can't win at extreme range without alternate tactics.  Adding in +2(Evasion) and you'll even defeat bracketing fire at long range.
Massed Subcapital or even Standard Scale fires run into a really nasty fire control wall... where that wall lives depends on the size of the ship, speeds, and starting conditions.  That said, Im not convinced that even in the core rules of 10:1 that massed standard weapons are decisive in a fleet engagement situation - the range advantage means that the ‘big gun’ ships start killing the ‘small gun’ ships outside their ability to reply.  Further, a focus on small guns leaves you catastrophically vulnerable to the ship with lonner range weapons and equal or greater thrust.
I'm pretty sure that standard-only warships capable of destroying a similar-scale naval only fleet with standard rules.  We went through this a bit at 600Ktons and Age of War tech.  Do you have other design parameters in mind?  Number of ships, tonnage, tech level?  Are individual weapon ranges in use?

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #74 on: 24 December 2018, 13:37:02 »
Lagrange - in my last point I was just talking balance for ship-mounted small weapons vs subcaps vs caps.

I like the stochastic point defense.  Keeps any amount of PDS from being certain immunity, allows enough point defense to pop a few nukes inbound.

Still think nukes are bad for the naval game - if they exist, and their use is permissible, the game goes away in a bright flash of light.  If they dont exist and/or their use is impermissible, why have rules?  I still think given the velocities and energies involved, we would be justified in saying capital scale weapons and missiles are already nuclear in scale.

My only concern with attempt 6 is it feels a bit cumbersome and break-pointy.  Ifs effective but... inelegant?  Or so I percieve it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #75 on: 24 December 2018, 13:43:26 »
I'm skeptical about this.   A to-hit of 15=4(base)+6(extreme)+2(side)+3(ECM) suggests you can't win at extreme range without alternate tactics.  Adding in +2(Evasion) and you'll even defeat bracketing fire at long range.I'm pretty sure that standard-only warships capable of destroying a similar-scale naval only fleet with standard rules.  We went through this a bit at 600Ktons and Age of War tech.  Do you have other design parameters in mind?  Number of ships, tonnage, tech level?  Are individual weapon ranges in use?

Substitute ‘long’ or even ‘medium’ as you feel necessary.  The longer ranged weapons still gets there first, assuming individual weapon ranges.

And I am assuming individual weapon ranges, yes. 

If you go with the default weapon ranges, then absolutely - the space layer collapses to point-blank exchanges in capital short range.  In such a game, yes, Clan eRLLas, subcap, etc. dominate, and at worst NACs - McKenna neve gets built and the NPPC, NLaser, etc. are just dead entries in a book.  Frankly, I think you illustrate well, above, how Ill-concieved the entire warship ruleset is.  ECM is crazy good and fire outside a knife fight is a joke, until you start using Naval C3 and Active Probes at suicide ranges... 

Option 7 - throw it all out and start over?

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5469
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #76 on: 24 December 2018, 15:04:57 »
Substitute ‘long’ or even ‘medium’ as you feel necessary.  The longer ranged weapons still gets there first, assuming individual weapon ranges.

And I am assuming individual weapon ranges, yes. 

If you go with the default weapon ranges, then absolutely - the space layer collapses to point-blank exchanges in capital short range.  In such a game, yes, Clan eRLLas, subcap, etc. dominate, and at worst NACs - McKenna neve gets built and the NPPC, NLaser, etc. are just dead entries in a book.  Frankly, I think you illustrate well, above, how Ill-concieved the entire warship ruleset is.  ECM is crazy good and fire outside a knife fight is a joke, until you start using Naval C3 and Active Probes at suicide ranges... 

Option 7 - throw it all out and start over?

Maybe not, but if you'er going to toss it all out, let's work out the situationals.


Tyra Miraborg.  isn't a problematic situation to resolve, if you want to prevent Kamikaze moves becoming 'the requirement' you add a PSR to the ramming attack-with a severe modifier, and a penalty.  the penalty being that the fighter or squadron of fighters breaks off and runs for the nearest map-edge, and is removed from the game.  BAsically an 'all or nothing' situation where either the attack 'succeeds' (doing cap damage and crits) or fails, (no damage) but either way those fighters are out of the game.

The PSR is a 'guts check'-they make it, they die, they fail it, they're out of the fight and fleeing blindly in a rout.

That's your 'constraint' on 'Tactical ramming your fighter into the capital warship', not all pilots have it in them to commit suicide for king and country, and the PSR should take a hit based on the pilot's (or unit's) experience; Greens will take a modifier of 0, with hyper-green/untrained (piloting of 7 or higher) being given a modifier to increase the success of the guts-check. (Untrained or poorly trained pilots made up the bulk of Kamikaze attacks in ww2, the GOOD  pilots tend to have a good, strong survival instinct.)

as for cap vs. conventional.....

Keep the 10/1 ratio, but only for big-bore weapons like AC/20 or Gauss Rifle.  Divide the others as follows;

LRM: 50/1 (takes 50 LRMs to do 1 point of damage)

SRM: 20/1

LBX Cluster: Ratingx10/1

MG: 200/1

and so on. for critz, an AC/10 or 10 standard hit can crit once, on a natural roll of 12. 

Underwing munitions:

Critical per the normal table for ASM and similar 'big bore' weapons, rocket pods don't crit, and only do 1 cap point for every 50 conventional points that hit.

Dropships:

10/1 damage for big bore weapons, but improved critical hits chance (Dropship fire controls are heavier than fighter fire controls,obviously they're going to be better for nailing critical systems and exposed weak points with conventional fire.)
Cluster weapons (LRM, SRM, etc.) do Clusterx10/1 (aka muliply the cluster average times ten, then that outcome is how much has to hit to do 1 point of cap damage), but with a restriction on crit table to requiring a boxcars roll to do 1 critical roll until the armor's gone.

Subcaps: work as written when mounted to dropships, and pose a better-ranged threat to warships.



"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 625
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #77 on: 24 December 2018, 16:43:57 »
Still think nukes are bad for the naval game - if they exist, and their use is permissible, the game goes away in a bright flash of light. 
If multifire AMS is used effectively then nukes are just a money pit.
If they dont exist and/or their use is impermissible, why have rules?  I still think given the velocities and energies involved, we would be justified in saying capital scale weapons and missiles are already nuclear in scale.
The physics works out.  25g (=50 thrust missile) for 60 seconds makes the closing velocity 15000 m/s.  If half the mass  of a killer whale is left at closing, I get 672 kilotons of tnt equivalent which is certainly in the nuclear range.   As a plus, no radiation problems are left from a kinetic hit.
My only concern with attempt 6 is it feels a bit cumbersome and break-pointy.  Ifs effective but... inelegant?  Or so I percieve it.

I'll take 'effective' as there aren't many competitors, but can you pin down what seems inelegant?

And I am assuming individual weapon ranges, yes. 
With individual weapons, NAC/35 and NAC/40 are obsolete in the presence of a Gauss rifle which has more range and far more damage / ton with the standard rules.

More generally, if you allow standard weapons at 10:1, it seems like a general recipe for success is to make a nose fighter out of big honking weapons such as an AC/20, up-engine the warship and conduct high speed passes until the enemy is destroyed.  You don't get a bonus to hit of -2 from capital-long and capital-extreme weapons, but the damage output disparity (maybe 3:1 after accounting for fire control issues) is so great that the advantage remains with the standard weapon warship.
ECM is crazy good and fire outside a knife fight is a joke, until you start using Naval C3 and Active Probes at suicide ranges... 
ECM makes pre-active probe (or pre-electronic warfare equipment) fights strongly favor short range, except for capital missiles with bearings-only launch.  But it's quite delicate---active probes cancel all smallcraft and 2 large craft ECM bubbles.   Thus, a small number of ASF mounting active probes are essentially required for warships in a world with ECM.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #78 on: 24 December 2018, 19:47:27 »
If multifire AMS is used effectively then nukes are just a money pit.The physics works out.  25g (=50 thrust missile) for 60 seconds makes the closing velocity 15000 m/s.  If half the mass  of a killer whale is left at closing, I get 672 kilotons of tnt equivalent which is certainly in the nuclear range.   As a plus, no radiation problems are left from a kinetic hit.I'll take 'effective' as there aren't many competitors, but can you pin down what seems inelegant?
With individual weapons, NAC/35 and NAC/40 are obsolete in the presence of a Gauss rifle which has more range and far more damage / ton with the standard rules.

More generally, if you allow standard weapons at 10:1, it seems like a general recipe for success is to make a nose fighter out of big honking weapons such as an AC/20, up-engine the warship and conduct high speed passes until the enemy is destroyed.  You don't get a bonus to hit of -2 from capital-long and capital-extreme weapons, but the damage output disparity (maybe 3:1 after accounting for fire control issues) is so great that the advantage remains with the standard weapon warship.ECM makes pre-active probe (or pre-electronic warfare equipment) fights strongly favor short range, except for capital missiles with bearings-only launch.  But it's quite delicate---active probes cancel all smallcraft and 2 large craft ECM bubbles.   Thus, a small number of ASF mounting active probes are essentially required for warships in a world with ECM.

1.)  That fits what I was thinking about the speeds these things move at - energy contents are at nuclear levels.

2.)  Probably better therefore to just eliminate the super-powerful nuke rules, and let missiles hit, than use infinite-firing-chance AMS and eliminate a class of weapons.

3.)  I find the idea that 1000 fighters doing 99 damage each are meaningless and 1000 figters doing 100 damage each do 1000 damage between them and are an all-destroying force inelegant.  Maybe Im just simple-minded, but making capital ships immune to standard weapons (and taking 1 damage from ASMs) seems to solve most of my problems.

4.)  Given the -massive- impact of BAPs in countering warship ECM, combind with the massive impact of that warship ECM - its such a hard off/on digital flip.  I think that sooner or later you would put tiny drone controlled disposable ‘fighters’ (sensor drones) on every warship in sufficient quantities to see you through the fight.  Id just leave the ECM rules at home and have one less complication, where that complication doesnt seem to add much.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #79 on: 24 December 2018, 20:38:41 »
There is no such thing as a radiation problem in space.
It's already pretty much radioactive.
If we want anywhere close to realistic parameters, it becomes a game of not being hit, and an entirely different game, so we'll have to live with not having that.
I do agree that we'd need a solution that is gradual. Softcaps, probabilities, etc..
Special rules always leave holes.
In the end, I think that every combat unit needs to be able to deal sustained damage to every other co,bat unit, for otherwise it will be ignored and might as well not exist. I also think that a warship shouldn't have a significantly easier time of killing a dropship than it has under the existing rules.
...  One you start looking at squadron or fleet level battle, your crippling or killing one or more ships a round, even at maximum range, with that sort of firepower.
So once we're at the point where whole ships are blown away by damage alone, what is the issue with crits?
Going for crits means spreading fire, and while that may on average reduce enemy firepower more, in my experience most players of just about every game prefer reliability.
Quote
You'll only use this option at short range, so I expect it's roughly equivalent to what you laid out.
It's close enough. Basically I want precision fire to be the only way for fighters (not dropships) to deal damage to undamaged capital armour.
The low hit chance would reduce the damage notably, but highly skilled pilots would get a good enough roll to make it desirable to remove them, and it feels more elegant than a hard cutoff. It also allows dropships to still exist with their larger banks of weapons and better electronics, and means jumpships are at risk due to usually not performing evasive maneuvers.
If we go the stochastic direction for AMS, why not for fighter offence, as well?

Also, I'd like to suggest fighters to be limited to either firing their onboard weapons or carried capitals, in a given round.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #80 on: 24 December 2018, 22:25:23 »
Whether one focuses fire to kill ships or spreads fire to suppress enemy firepower is a tactical decision - and probably a more situational one than we can address here.

Ive got a set of HR’s I can live with out of this, which I think solves my problems:

1.)  Standard Weapons cant hurt capital armor (they impact capital IS at 10:1)
  -  fighters and droppers can still fight each other
  -  fighters arent a threat to warships without special munitions, unless
  -  ships have exposed facings, in which case fighters are deadly.
  (This makes fighters part of a combat team)
2.)  ASMs impact capital armor for 1 damage.
  -  Lets fighters in large numbers threaten warships - but they arent a go to weapon here.
3.)  No nukes
  -  As discussed, these things are already at nuclear levels of energy.  And getting rid of super-special-game-breaking nukes cuts down on table flipping.
4.)  AMS/Small Lasers/Etc. Cant shoot down capital-scale missiles
  -  Or for that matter Subcap missiles, or ASMs.  Since we dont have supernukes, hits are allowable.  As discussed, capital missiles are iffy weapons -anyway-
5.)  Individual Weapon Ranges
  -  Because otherwise so many weapons dont make sense.
6.)  Capital ships ignore capital ECM.
  -  Because otherwise we suicide 1 BAP-equipped fighter a turn every turn as it charges into range to get the same effect.  And if we cant do that, McKenna never got built.

And at my home table:
1.)  Drop Collar costs are lower than listed.
2.)  Dropship cost multipliers are lower than listed.

Good enough for me.  Dont expect anyone else to buy in, but it gives me what I percieve to he an environment that allos for existing ships, and additional strategies, without having a single ‘I win’ approach.

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 625
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #81 on: 24 December 2018, 23:12:30 »
2.)  Probably better therefore to just eliminate the super-powerful nuke rules, and let missiles hit, than use infinite-firing-chance AMS and eliminate a class of weapons.
I think nukes are there because Battletech is set in the "Future", and we have nukes in the present so nukes should be present in the future.  With that said, it does seem that nukes could be toned down at capital scale from the viewpoint of physics.   A Peacemaker (500KTon) Killer Whale-N maybe just does double damage.   The top end US nuclear stockpile is presently a 1.2Mton warhead that weighs ~1 ton and would presumably do ~12 capital damage when mounted on a Killer Whale.  The US stockpile used to contain a 4 ton warhead that produced a 9Mton explosion which would translate linearly to 64 capital damage.
3.)  I find the idea that 1000 fighters doing 99 damage each are meaningless and 1000 figters doing 100 damage each do 1000 damage between them and are an all-destroying force inelegant. 
It's not that simple, because it's about damage received on a facing, not damage delivered.  There is uncertainty in both whether and where a fighter hits which makes incremental changes in fighter tech have incremental impact on capital damage delivered.  Also, tactics matter---it's much easier to deliver the requisite damage to the aft or nose facings.
Maybe Im just simple-minded, but making capital ships immune to standard weapons (and taking 1 damage from ASMs) seems to solve most of my problems.
I'd have to agree, I guess.  And, I don't think you need to play with ASMs if you don't play with advanced point defense.
4.)  Given the -massive- impact of BAPs in countering warship ECM, combind with the massive impact of that warship ECM - its such a hard off/on digital flip.  I think that sooner or later you would put tiny drone controlled disposable ‘fighters’ (sensor drones) on every warship in sufficient quantities to see you through the fight.  Id just leave the ECM rules at home and have one less complication, where that complication doesnt seem to add much.
It certainly adds somewhat to tactical complexity.  Is tactical complexity desirable or not in a game?  I could see it being interesting to some people and not to others.
In the end, I think that every combat unit needs to be able to deal sustained damage to every other co,bat unit, for otherwise it will be ignored and might as well not exist. I also think that a warship shouldn't have a significantly easier time of killing a dropship than it has under the existing rules.
Attempt 6 seems to be in the ballpark here.
It's close enough. Basically I want precision fire to be the only way for fighters (not dropships) to deal damage to undamaged capital armour.
The low hit chance would reduce the damage notably, but highly skilled pilots would get a good enough roll to make it desirable to remove them, and it feels more elegant than a hard cutoff. It also allows dropships to still exist with their larger banks of weapons and better electronics, and means jumpships are at risk due to usually not performing evasive maneuvers.
If I understand right, your proposal is that damage stays at 10:1 (or even 5:1), but there is a +4 to hit penalty for standard weapons to cause damage on capital armor?
Also, I'd like to suggest fighters to be limited to either firing their onboard weapons or carried capitals, in a given round.
Why?

1.)  Standard Weapons cant hurt capital armor (they impact capital IS at 10:1)
Minor nitpick: because capital damage is divided by 2 when applied to structure, in the standard rules you need 15 damage to deal 1 to capital structure, 35 for 2, 55 for 3, etc...
4.)  AMS/Small Lasers/Etc. Cant shoot down capital-scale missiles
  -  Or for that matter Subcap missiles, or ASMs.  Since we dont have supernukes, hits are allowable.  As discussed, capital missiles are iffy weapons -anyway-
I'm cautious here.  Bearings-only launches with Waypoints seem quite frightening in terms of doing significant damage at extreme range, particularly with the Barracuda.  With ECM eliminated, the to-hit at extreme range for HNPPCs is 11=4(base)+6(extreme)+2(Side)+2(Evasion)-3(Bracketing Fire), so damage inflicted is 3.3% of potential.  On the other hand, Barracudas are hitting with 6=4(base)+2(Side)+2(Evasion)-2(Barracuda), so damage inflicted is 72% of potential with more arcs and the potential for over-the-horizon shots.  This seems like a new category killer.  My rough design suggests a 600Kton warship can send 285 Barracudas downrange while present a side arc, doing 412 expected capital damage.  As far as I can tell, the Barracuda's damage output dominates at _all_ ranges for the 10 rounds of fire it can sustain, and the 10 rounds of fire is more than adequate to destroy 3x it's own weight in warship, even at extreme range, and even through LFC armor. 

In general, I think rule 1 gives you lots of mileage.  You can eliminate rules 2, 3, 4, and 6 with the game staying intact.  (Yes, Nuke proof implies missile proof, nerfing a class of weapons.  That's ok compared to the current situation which nerfs all strategies other than fighter carriers.).  Rule 5 isn't a house rule.  Rule 4 seems deeply imbalancing. 

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #82 on: 24 December 2018, 23:38:14 »
Hmm.  A few notes:

If were using individual weapon ranges, Barracudas dont get +2 to hit - they just have an unusually long short rangeband (and as a result, longer medium and long bands).  So that cuts your expected damage - though that double sized short band does make putting the target ‘in the basket’ for short range a lot easier.  Theres also going to be guesswork for the attacker, and the need to dodge missiles may drive ship thrust levels up...  for all of that said, Id be equally comfortable with a stochastic, ‘each AMS shot has a 1 in N’ chance of killing a missile style defense, if convinced that its needed to prevent CG dominance.  I dont want any strategy to be dominant.

As for nukes.... Im more of the ‘this is the future, nukes were a long time ago’ school.  I like the idea that nuclear weapons are trivial compared to the weapons these ships mount, and find it cooler than waiting for someone to press the Shiny Red Button amd flip the board.

As for ECM and BAPs... I just dont see ‘I send in a sacrifical BAP equipped fighter every turn’ as being tactically interesting?  Maybe that way lies a cool, deep game of fighter vs fighter backed up by dropship v dropship backed up by warship v warship, and Ive not thought it through.

And I went with the 1 damage ASMs because by my math, the full damage ASM takes is back to the all destroying fighter swarm.

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 625
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #83 on: 25 December 2018, 01:39:10 »
If were using individual weapon ranges, Barracudas dont get +2 to hit - they just have an unusually long short rangeband (and as a result, longer medium and long bands). 
Good point, I'd missed this.
So that cuts your expected damage - though that double sized short band does make putting the target ‘in the basket’ for short range a lot easier.  Theres also going to be guesswork for the attacker, and the need to dodge missiles may drive ship thrust levels up... 
A warship needs an unrealistically high speed to dodge the Barracuda short range band.   Let's shift the BC warship to use a nose aspect so 7 arcs can be brought to bear through waypoints, each with 63 BCs.  Let's launch the BCs at range 60 and set the designation range to be 50 hexes away.   The enemy warship is completely out of range so the best it can do is evade.  There is no way it can generate 10 thrust to escape the BCs short range band, so it will be hit.  The best modifier possible without ECM is 8 (=4(base)+2(side)+2(evasion))  so 184 BCs are expected to hit doing an expected 368 damage.  As a consequence it takes <4 hits to kill, even with LFC armor and a single missileer can kill ~2.5x it's weight in enemy warships before running dry, potentially without taking any return fire.  Killer Whales are somewhat more damage efficient, so we can potentially use them to kill 3.4x our weight in enemy warships for the cost of somewhat more difficult firing solutions.
for all of that said, Id be equally comfortable with a stochastic, ‘each AMS shot has a 1 in N’ chance of killing a missile style defense, if convinced that its needed to prevent CG dominance.  I dont want any strategy to be dominant.
The stochasticity makes sense on a realism basis and monbvol wants to see that as well.
As for nukes.... Im more of the ‘this is the future, nukes were a long time ago’ school.  I like the idea that nuclear weapons are trivial compared to the weapons these ships mount, and find it cooler than waiting for someone to press the Shiny Red Button amd flip the board.

And I went with the 1 damage ASMs because by my math, the full damage ASM takes is back to the all destroying fighter swarm.
It's a 3-for-0 in my mind.  If you keep multifire AMS, then you can keep nukes and full power ASMs in the game. 

On a "realism" basis (as opposed to a "balance" basis), I believe that ASMs do to much damage and have way to much armor.   

Also, nukes, as stated, seem to do to much damage in comparison to the missile itself which could be fixed by either reducing nuke damage (potentially to 0 additional) or by increasing the yield.
As for ECM and BAPs... I just dont see ‘I send in a sacrifical BAP equipped fighter every turn’ as being tactically interesting?  Maybe that way lies a cool, deep game of fighter vs fighter backed up by dropship v dropship backed up by warship v warship, and Ive not thought it through.
Suddenly you want to have screening elements in a manner that did not exist previously.
« Last Edit: 25 December 2018, 09:12:43 by Lagrange »

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #84 on: 25 December 2018, 07:30:57 »
  Is tactical complexity desirable or not in a game?
It always is, that's the whole point of this discussion. Create choices for the players, allow them to react. Realism doesn't quite work with that without creating an entirely new system that wouldn't quite be fun either.
If I understand right, your proposal is that damage stays at 10:1 (or even 5:1), but there is a +4 to hit penalty for standard weapons to cause damage on capital armor?
...
Why?
Essentially. What conversion is used for damage could me modified to fit balance, I think even a 20:1 would work well for that. The reason I originally suggested lower penalties at longer range was basically just a play to allow longer ranged shots at even lower odds. I figured we already have probabilistic hit chances, and low odds would mean low average damage while still allowing some danger.
In our recently deceased game, I remember we had no capital damage from fighters, and I thought about it long and hard and came to the conclusion that in that environment, fighters are worth neither my budget nor my attention. That said, I think screen launchers would need to be nerfed as well if fighters are rebalanced.
...
The idea behind that was as follows: Fighters, usually, have small arms installed and carry a missile. Said small arms can and will be used to defend against incoming capital missiles. If they can only use one or the other, that creates a moment of vulnerability when they fire on their primary target.
MAD, if you will. I guess it would make more sense to limit their forward arcs to one target on the capital scale, with other fighters or incoming barracudas being a secondary you can't properly target - or at least at a significant penalty, which is a rule I believe is in the game, but I'm not sure it extends to point defence.

Regarding ECM, I think we absolutely should have that in the game.
Maybe it's a bit strong, maybe it's too easy to circumvent entirely with Active Probes, but ECM is a significant part of the 'tactical landscape'.
It gives us the Battlespace equivalent of terrain.
You can hide ships behind the ECM bubble of other ships, thus forcing an opponent to remove those first or take worse odds.

Lastly, I think if we're at the point where we create significant house rules, we need to take a look at construction in general.
There is no reason apparent to me why a warship would not carry the maximum amount of capital armour it can, while that is common place for ground units in the same system.
There is no reason to create small ships if you can build large ones, unless you need a minimum amount of hulls for entirely non-combat reasons.
The whole space ruleset to me looks like a second thought, and I think that's mostly because it was.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #85 on: 25 December 2018, 10:59:00 »
Hitting with Bearings Only Launched Missiles:

Im working the math.  If your firing Barracuda, set at short range, youve got a 20" equilateral triangle 'basket', measured from the nose of your missile.  Your shooting one turn blind if within 50mu of the target hex at the time of launch.

So, on turn 1, you know where your opponent will be on Turn 2, IF he does not maneuver.  You can place your opponent at the center of your 20" equilateral triangle 'basket'.  A point at the dead center of such a basket is at most 5" from the nearest edge...

So it looks like you can dead-eye a 3/5 warship every time, if your using a barracuda.  In fact, you wont use anything BUT Barracudas.. the slightly increased damage efficiency isn't worth having to set the range basket to medium.

THN for missiles is gonna be at most 8 in that basket, if ECM isnt a factor (and since weapons fire is simultaneous, and after movement, I don't see a way to avoid ECM always being reduced to zero by brave little boys and girls with BAPs and a death wish).   That may still be too good.. its 40% hits, and missiles are bad, but they arent ~that~ bad.

It really balances better with WS and KW, I think.  The much smaller short range basket makes you either have to set the range gate to medium, or you accept some salvos are going to be wasted.

How would you set up your stochastic point defense to make it playable at the table, if you had salvos of 100s of missiles inbound on a side?  For that matter, how much are you planning on mounting at all?  Your 600KT ship with its 400 missile launch inbound - how much AMS/PDS did you figure the target would mount?

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #86 on: 25 December 2018, 11:32:38 »
The difficulty with using a probability system is that we're still talking about a tabletop.
We're not playing much at a table, and if I ever did I'd use a computer, but we still need to think about a system that works on a table.
We'd need to have a chance to intercept missiles, which rises with point defense, but may only reach 100% with very high amounts of that and a very small inbound salvo.
The chance would turn into the equivalent of a cluster hits roll in larger games, with bonuses for both the amount of inbound missiles and the number of defending ships - but ultimately, one turn of defensive fire would still be a large roll for all defenders combined, or maybe staggered by means of inheriting modifiers. There would never be a guarantee to shoot down all incoming missiles until such a point where rounding even with a 3d6 isn't feasible anymore.
In the ballpark of 40 MGs for a single, lone KW.
I think mathematically, this is quite the interesting conundrum.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 625
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #87 on: 25 December 2018, 13:33:46 »
Essentially. What conversion is used for damage could me modified to fit balance, I think even a 20:1 would work well for that.
I don't think it works---the ASF can still inflict to much damage even with regular pilots.

Consider: 10=4(short)+4(capital armor)+0(ECM)+2(evasion) attacking the aft arc from the same hex giving a 1-in-6 chance of hitting.  A 5/8 ASF could have 15 forward facing medium lasers that will commonly hit 2.5 times and cause 1+ capital damage (remember you round normally).   1+ capital damage/ASF/round is to much.  Screwing with the conversion factor alone has deleterious effects as per attempt 3.  Attempt 6 avoids this by only screwing with the conversion factor in one direction which you could do here.  10 standard for 1 capital might leaves regular pilots still commonly hitting with AoW/3025 tech.  With 15 or 20 standard damage, the optimal strategy is probably a double AC/20 ASF which would do 1 capital damage/round.  However, a smallcraft could use a weapons bay to hit the 15 or 20 threshold quite regularly.  The high end of damage for a smallcraft is about 90 capital damage/round so if you want the capital damage for regular crews to be less than 1-in-3, you need a threshold of 40 or so which makes even an elite pilot on an ASF have difficulty at this tech level.   Maybe that works?
The idea behind that was as follows: Fighters, usually, have small arms installed and carry a missile. Said small arms can and will be used to defend against incoming capital missiles. If they can only use one or the other, that creates a moment of vulnerability when they fire on their primary target.
It seems ok, but it's not addressing a problem?
There is no reason apparent to me why a warship would not carry the maximum amount of capital armour it can, while that is common place for ground units in the same system.
If we use a 100:1 standard:capital ratio as per attempt 6, it seems quite logical to allow a factor of 10 more armor (by tonnage) on warships but not change the amount of capital armor allowed.   This would decrease free tonnage slightly and greatly increase the cost of armor so that LFC is no longer a no-brainer.
There is no reason to create small ships if you can build large ones, unless you need a minimum amount of hulls for entirely non-combat reasons.
While I agree, it seems worth pointing out that you wanted two hulls to take advantage of ECM  :)  There are also plenty of different roles for warships, some of which don't really require firepower.
The whole space ruleset to me looks like a second thought, and I think that's mostly because it was.
The current rules seem way better than the older rules so that's something...

Im working the math.  If your firing Barracuda, set at short range, youve got a 20" equilateral triangle 'basket', measured from the nose of your missile.  Your shooting one turn blind if within 50mu of the target hex at the time of launch.
Which notably means that you can hit something beyond range 50 since the target can be beyond the designated hex.
So, on turn 1, you know where your opponent will be on Turn 2, IF he does not maneuver.  You can place your opponent at the center of your 20" equilateral triangle 'basket'.  A point at the dead center of such a basket is at most 5" from the nearest edge...
The exact formula seems to be 5.77".
It really balances better with WS and KW, I think.  The much smaller short range basket makes you either have to set the range gate to medium, or you accept some salvos are going to be wasted.
Can you abort misprogrammed bearings-only launches?  I don't see why not on a logical basis.  Given this, it's just a matter of trying again.
How would you set up your stochastic point defense to make it playable at the table, if you had salvos of 100s of missiles inbound on a side?  For that matter, how much are you planning on mounting at all?  Your 600KT ship with its 400 missile launch inbound - how much AMS/PDS did you figure the target would mount?
I'd assume you go up to maybe 320 small lasers and then start using Smallcraft/ASF to further enhance point defense.

As far as stochastic rules... maybe point defense = 4 * capital damage generates a 50% chance to kill the capital missile (or a flight from a capital missile bay).  Multiple 50% chances to kill the same capital missile(s) are possible, but all point defense must be designated against incoming capital missile (flights) before rolls to kill the capital missiles are made.    These rules imply that point defense is about as effective in expectation as the current rules in the limit of to many missiles.  They also imply that getting every single missile implies overkill is needed by a factor of log(#missile flights) + log (1/probability something gets through anyways).  This rule means that the number of defensive rolls is never much larger than the number of offensive rolls.

I also thought about multifire AMS.  I think the primary objection is that it's super unrealistic to shoot at 400 missiles in a 60 second window consuming 33 tons of ammunition.  As a comparison point, I'd estimate a Phalanx (a 6 ton system) as burning through .35 ton with 60 seconds of continuous fire.  If multifire AMS was limited to 6 shots it would seem more reasonable, and that's how often it can fire in a ground game over a minute.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1171
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #88 on: 25 December 2018, 15:07:32 »
You cannot, in the rules, abort and retarget misanned launches launches.

Once we go beyond 50 hexes, we add an additional turn of uncertainty to the targets position - beyond 100, two turns, etc.  Obviously, everything depends on hiw deep your ammo supply is and how agile your target, but Id think very very hard and want to be very certain of my math before I start burning ammo against a more than one turns possible manuvers.  Two turns gives you 15” of uncertainty in the final position of a 3/5 ship....


Lagrange

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 625
Re: Balancing naval rules for interest
« Reply #89 on: 25 December 2018, 16:28:50 »
You cannot, in the rules, abort and retarget misanned launches launches.
The editor's intention seems ambiguous enough that I opened a question here.
Once we go beyond 50 hexes, we add an additional turn of uncertainty to the targets position
My understanding is that this is not quite right.  The designated hex must be within 50 hexes, and the targets position must be within the designated range band from the designated position.  Hence, if the designated range band is short on a Barracuda, you could theoretically hit a target 70 hexes away without additional delay.   That risks the target escaping to 71 hexes though, so instead firing from 60 hexes and setting the designated hex to be 50 hexes from the firing warship and 10 hexes from the target seems about right.
- beyond 100, two turns, etc.  Obviously, everything depends on hiw deep your ammo supply is and how agile your target, but Id think very very hard and want to be very certain of my math before I start burning ammo against a more than one turns possible manuvers.  Two turns gives you 15” of uncertainty in the final position of a 3/5 ship....
Against space stations & jump ships it seems possible to attack from very far away, particularly against an unsuspecting opponent.

 

Register