Warship Race Redux

[UnLimiTeD]

And I don't care if you want to replace the code with your method? 

Oh, please don't.  :))
I think your version is far better. This was the first time I tried something like that on Google Drive. I've just linked it as a an example.
What I'd really prefer is if we could keep the / in the NAC and NL names (optionally, ideally) and the option to just write out Barracuda if the weapon line isn't too long already.
... Is there a formatting option to automatically increase the font size if there's space left?

2) Yes to the armor scale.... I just don't have any idea on how to change it. The previous iteration fighters we're too powerful, this one not enough.

I'd prefer just using 20/1, with an extra penalty for fighters against WS. After all, if Dropships have a chance, you can use fighters to murder dropships.

11) All RP games suffer those effects: the ideas of IC knowledge and OOC knowledge. This turn I posted really quickly so the DC and LC could take advantage of that and plan their turns around that: common decency says DONT. My first turn I built flawed designs and RP'ed why they were approved. I do try and cycle and tweak designs based on the previous turns knowledge and experience.

Yup. I definitely guessed right what you were planning last turn, but didn't react to it. But doing that multiple times while also building slightly suboptimal designs would take a lot of role-playing.

My turns up :D Whats taking you so long  >:D :P

Oh, come on! You copy-pasted part of your fleet doctrine from last turns post.
Think I wouldn't notice, did you? :fine_print:

Edit: I could imagine buying 2 snots at around maintenance price.

Edit2: The extra Firecontrol weight starts at 21 weapons, but continues at 40. I think that's 1 early? (Edit3) Ah, so that is what Lagrange meant.

[Jester Motley]

Oh, please don't.  :))
I think your version is far better. This was the first time I tried something like that on Google Drive. I've just linked it as a an example.
What I'd really prefer is if we could keep the / in the NAC and NL names (optionally, ideally) and the option to just write out Barracuda if the weapon line isn't too long already.
... Is there a formatting option to automatically increase the font size if there's space left?

Shrug  -I- am not going to change it.  :)  Then I'd have to maintain it, and I have a hard enough time maintaining my own code.

Er... Maybe there's an autoformat?  There's conditional formating, which can futz a cell's font, and you can do a hidden calculation on each cell's text size, then do conditional formating on that hidden calc for each cell...  Not all that hard?  But more than I'm willing to do right now.  Been super busy in life and work, so I've been dragging on the game.

11) All RP games suffer those effects: the ideas of IC knowledge and OOC knowledge. This turn I posted really quickly so the DC and LC could take advantage of that and plan their turns around that: common decency says DONT. My first turn I built flawed designs and RP'ed why they were approved. I do try and cycle and tweak designs based on the previous turns knowledge and experience. Their is a bit of a disadvantage because we can't modify them quickly enough and entire fleet compositions might change in a turn while you're building a counter to the previous fleet. That being said that's also real life. The trick is to try and beat that curve by behind ahead of it and becoming the meta.

I've had first/second posts for a turn, if someone wanted to use that info... not much I can do.  Lately I've been late in posting cause of work/life issues, but I don't read the IC thread until after I post in it.  I don't expect others to do that, but I find it more fun going in blind.

[UnLimiTeD]

Given I have access to the shared doc, I'll just create a more UnLimiTeD-readable column for me, and then leave the one parsed by you alone.  :thumbsup:
... I do seem to suffer from somewhat of a design explosion, though. 
For the coming turn, I'm looking at 2 new ship designs, a new station design, and a ship- and station upgrade programme.

WRT Maintenance - Im considering, if I do this again, simply making maintenance a factor of displacement, with a 250kt ship costing 1/4 the maintenance of a 1MT ship. 

I've tried calculating that on an updated Kutai and not-yet built battleship design. By reducing the maintenance cost to 40% of value, but adding a million per 1000 tons displacement, the Kutai's maintenance cost was nearly 12% cheaper, while the 1.1mt battleship was 1.5% more expensive to maintain. Meanwhile, the projected battlecruiser (which I've noticed has been delayed long enough it can actually mount new armour now :beer:) with roughly the same weight would be 3% cheaper.
So a half/half approach might be very promising for the future.

[Lagrange]

I'm still catching up and have various questions/comments.

Is there any guidance on how variation in maintenance affects crew quality?  Is it 40% = green, 50% = regular, and 60% = Veteran?  (So ... 70% = Elite?)

I saw a mention upthread of mothballing requiring 10% maintenance, but here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rIBaiLqUhwppFvoNmXGHpS0HWSVSEuxLY25m-u0uaPc/edit#gid=1453108897 it says mothballing is 0% maintenance, so I'm slightly confused here.

W.r.t. "ASF don't matter", an ASF with 11 small lasers and 200 armor on wings and nose requires about 4-5 Barracuda to destroy.   The lasers will take out an expected 2 while the armor will certainly absorb 1, is likely to absorb 2 and could possibly absorb 3.  On a mass basis at least, that's better than a Barracuda launcher.  The metapoint here is that "X doesn't matter" seems to be a function of where designs are allowed to matter rather than the capital-to-standard conversion rule.   (Also, there's quite a bit of simplicity in 100:1 over intermediate values.)

For the design of the Kuan Yin, I'm slightly confused by the design.  The surface to ground transport seems to be highly constrained by the 30 smallcraft?  That would allow at most a half regiment of light vehicles + a half regiment of foot soldiers per landing wave?

[marcussmythe]

30 small craft.  100 tons of vehicle bays.  60 per trip. - the CCAF of that era relied on 50 ton tanks.

If mothballing says 0, that is an error. 10%

[UnLimiTeD]

W.r.t. "ASF don't matter"

• We're not using self-designed small units, so there is no such thing as an ASF with 600+ armour.
• Even if there was, that's quite the investment for something that'll still be one-shot by a single NL/35. Or mid-sized sub-capitals once they come online.
• But why shoot it; It's a pure Point-Defence design. Yes, it'll do its job, but it not harm warships, and not be any particular danger to the other side's fighter screen, so it can safely be ignored.(Discounting later anti-ship missiles, here).
• If fighting against stations with plenty of ammo (the only significant sources of missiles atm), it's still not economical. A standard aerospace fighter costs as much as 625 barracudas.

Your earlier point regarding active probes is absolutely valid, though. Fighters can be superb suicide scouts.
Such a design would reinforce the actual point, though: A unit being the best counter to itself results in the side that brings more winning, while a heavily armoured fighter would take tremendous amounts of standard scale fire, but still perish by a single capital laser hit - so why mount any small weapons unless the facing is below 20 guns and the ship has little, but some, spare weight?

[Daryk]

The canon Lucifer R20 does get close though, with 528...

[marcussmythe]

Standard scale weapons remain a very efficient way to kill fighters.

Fighters remain a very efficient way to kill lightly armored or damaged ships, and are not useless against even pristine, heavily armored ships - sensors by their nature cannot be armored, and a warship with no sensors is basically a rock with a manuver drive.

Missiles are a good way to kill fighters, but not the only way - and are a mediocre anti-ship weapon, damage per ton.  The one time we have seen missiles truely devastate fighters was over a defended system with a mildly insane number of launchers - missile launchers are a very good weapon for stations, due to the stations being more cost than mass constrained.

So far, we havent seen fighters really cut loose against an undefended fleet.  We may not. But if we do, I anticipate the results will be surprising.

[Lagrange]

30 small craft.  100 tons of vehicle bays.  60 per trip. - the CCAF of that era relied on 50 ton tanks.

Right, so 6 round trips.   This feels a bit high, particularly when you take into account the need to conduct maintenance.  It looks feasible although those smallcraft will be really working.

If mothballing says 0, that is an error. 10%

The error is here under "Items to Buy" under "Maintenance".

Any comment on 40% vs. 60% maintenance?

We're not using self-designed small units, so there is no such thing as an ASF with 600+ armour.

I understand. 

Even if there was, that's quite the investment for something that'll still be one-shot by a single NL/35. Or mid-sized sub-capitals once they come online.

An NL/35 weighs 700 tons, so this seems pretty reasonable to me. 

But why shoot it; It's a pure Point-Defence design. Yes, it'll do its job, but it not harm warships, and not be any particular danger to the other side's fighter screen, so it can safely be ignored

There is room for a big stompy weapon like an AC/20 as well.  Also, if you want to concede targeting of fighters with Barracuda, that means they can protect their warships throughout combat rather than just in the opening phase---that's great for their utility.

If fighting against stations with plenty of ammo (the only significant sources of missiles atm), it's still not economical. A standard aerospace fighter costs as much as 625 barracudas.

I believe you are accounting for the overhead of the ASF, but not for the overhead of the station. 

For example, the Shaobing has 4 Barracuda launchers and an NL55 while costing 30M.  Against 6 ASF with 11 SLs each (also costing 30M) there is a 1-in-64 chance that Barracudas land.  The NL55 will one-shot the ASFs, but even in AAA mode the odds of a hit aren't great until you reach short range.   

It's also important to keep in mind the fact that ASFs are far more transportable and hence far more likely to be relevant in combat.  That's valuable. 

Your earlier point regarding active probes is absolutely valid, though. Fighters can be superb suicide scouts.
Such a design would reinforce the actual point, though: A unit being the best counter to itself results in the side that brings more winning, while a heavily armoured fighter would take tremendous amounts of standard scale fire, but still perish by a single capital laser hit - so why mount any small weapons unless the facing is below 20 guns and the ship has little, but some, spare weight?

Some minor weapons to deal with enemy ASF seem ok, if they can be slipped in without substantially increasing mass.  Otherwise, I agree---naval weapons are the preferred choice for naval ships.

[Daryk]

Don't forget every single fighter can carry a nuke, the great equalizer.

[kindalas]

Don't forget every single fighter can carry a nuke, the great equalizer.

But only when packaged into the shape of a Barracuda.

 :D

[Daryk]

STILL the great equalizer...  ^-^

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, nukes for us deal standard damage, so... uh...
Eh.

I believe you are accounting for the overhead of the ASF, but not for the overhead of the station. 

Actually, just for the fighter vs. missile ammunition. A single missile is 8000, a fighter is 5m. The fighter costs maintenance, the missile doesn't (unless you shoot 50% of them every turn).
I actually think missiles are rather unsuited to battles, but if you manage to win, they are very economical.

Otherwise, I agree---naval weapons are the preferred choice for naval ships.

I don't actually have a problem with that, but that sounds a little too pointed for my tastes.  ;)

To take a real world marine analogy, actual battleships had big guns that were unsuited to effectively fight small, nimble destroyers, torpedo boats, and obviously aircraft. Sure, they were devastating when they hit (unless the target was so light and small the shell just smashed through without detonating, which happened), but they were hard to train on target and hard to shoot in on something that could change course quickly.
So those ships had a secondary battery of smaller guns. And sometimes torpedoes and AA armament that we can ignore for our medium is different.
For role specialization, there were those lighter ships, with lighter guns, which could hit lighter ships.

But in our case, the best choice for pretty much every ship seems to be to increase the main gun battery, on all the ships, every time, and then just use some lighter guns to fill the remaining space on deck when the remaining displacement isn't sufficient to mount yet another gun. Which does sound like some ships of past centuries. ;D

[Lagrange]

Actually, just for the fighter vs. missile ammunition. A single missile is 8000, a fighter is 5m. The fighter costs maintenance, the missile doesn't (unless you shoot 50% of them every turn).

A bare missile launcher has no value though---it only functions in the context of deployment on some platform. 

If we want to compare bare things, then 40 rounds of MG ammo costs .4K and can reduce the expected damage of a Barracuda by a factor of 1024 (i.e. about .2 standard damage)---a bargain.

I don't actually have a problem with that, but that sounds a little too pointed for my tastes.  ;)

I see what you're saying. 

One problem here is the '4 corners' design strategy which tends to naturally allocate naval weapons to 4 arcs and antimissile weapons to 4 arcs, leaving no good arcs for secondary weapons.  This is not the only possibly design strategy though.  When I get a chance to design a warship, perhaps I can show that.

[Daryk]

As a subscriber to the 4 corners strategy, I look forward to your proposal...  ^-^

[UnLimiTeD]

For a new iteration of a warship race (while I could see small maintenance changes or research, I'm not advocating changing rules of construction in a running system), I would suggest a sort of construction guideline - no arc can more than 20 guns over the adjacent arcs, unless it's either the front or aft (choose, not both), or the adjacent arcs are empty.
That said, on a 1mt warship, adding some Capital Missiles (or later sub-capital lasers) to a point-defence battery won't cost that much tonnage.

[Daryk]

I'm almost beginning to think Point Defense weapons should be considered completely separately from the "regular" weapons.  They should certainly have a limit, I just think it should be different than the Capital Weapon one...

[marcussmythe]

With regards to maintenance.

Let us assume 5B in maintenance on a 10B ship as the standard, and such a ship to have a value arbitrarily set at ‘1’

Every 10% increase in maintenance brings a roughly 5% increase in performance, to a limit of 100% increase (10B maintenance on a 10B ship) and an arbitrary value of 1.5

Every 10% decrease brings a roughly 20% decrease in performance, to a practical limit of 50% decrease (2.5B in maintenance on a 10B ship), and an arbitrary value of -0-.  Better to mothball at that point.

Now, these are rough.  Any ship that can make space has -some- military value, but at maintenance that poor, it may not be worth the fleet train to support it.  At the opposite end, while 2 ships at maximum training/elite status may in a general case be a match for 3 regular ships - thats a general case.  Their training might let them pull off tricks that are simply impossible for a lesser crew (pinpoint jumps, fast recharge, sensor performance, diplomatic awesome), but at the same time, being tucked into the wall of battle may not let that brilliance show to full effect - your stuck manuvering and firing with everyone else.

With regard to rules changes - I think the rules discussion is fertile ground and will be useful to whoever runs this next.  I look forward to playing when this winds down (not soon)

[UnLimiTeD]

Yeh, increased maintenance is really only useful in small quantities for units that aren't ships of the line.
Paying double maintenance on 2 ships has the same effect (including cost) as just building a third one, with the exception that in the latter case, the turn afterwards you will have another ship.
But sometimes, reliability trumps potential, and sometimes, it's the other way around - and maintenance can give you both. Still, mostly a luxury item like ships with no obvious purpose.

[Lagrange]

The maintenance approach sounds sensible to me.   Maybe add it to the master spreadsheet when mothballing is fixed.

[marcussmythe]

The maintenance approach sounds sensible to me.   Maybe add it to the master spreadsheet when mothballing is fixed.

Done.  Also codified rules for decay rates at below-mothballs maintenance, and for their impact on scrap values.  Most of which we will likely never use, but good to have.

[UnLimiTeD]

Question here:
I've been trying to create a log of the rough development of each nation to make a nice graph off it later.
But some calculations just don't match up.
Like, say, I take Cargo and size class of 2380, but I get different results by just dividing one by the other than the Cargo/SC listed in the document. Or comparing the total armour of my ships with the total armour listed in the overview.
Is there a system to this? After all, I need not be accurate as long as I am always off by the same margin to create a decent graphic from it.

Similarly, I'm trying to log the changes in economy/budget, and the TH lost more than the cessations of budget to the houses would indicate - 116 vs. 68.
Anyways, assuming that's all correct, the budget gains/losses outside of dismembering the TH are:

Terran Hegemony	-48 b
Draconis Combine	-17.5 b
Federated Suns	+12 b
Capellan Confederation	+14 b
Free Worlds League	+9.5 b
Lyran Commonwealth	+39.5 b

Impressive work by the Lyrans, I must say.  :thumbsup: Seems the station network is paying off.

[Lagrange]

Done.  Also codified rules for decay rates at below-mothballs maintenance, and for their impact on scrap values.  Most of which we will likely never use, but good to have.

Is the decay value 2%/turn or 20%/turn?  The writeup says the first but argues the second.

W.r.t. mothballs, I don't see a game problem with mothballs being cheap.  They were free last game, and not used that much. 

[marcussmythe]

Is the decay value 2%/turn or 20%/turn?  The writeup says the first but argues the second.

W.r.t. mothballs, I don't see a game problem with mothballs being cheap.  They were free last game, and not used that much.

Maintenance was much lower last game, and mothballing thus not terribly attractive.

And decay is 2% of starting value per percent, below 10%, paid.  Thus if you pay nothing, the ship loses 20% of its starting value.  If you pay 9%, it loses 2%. 

As for data like cargo per size class - thats pretty old, and was updated only spottily as turns passed.  Im not at all surprised it doesnt add up.

[Lagrange]

I see.  So the options are:
<variable> value now from selling
25% of value now from scrapping.
-10% value now for potential future use.
-20% value in the future for potential use.  (Or some linear combination with the previous.)

Can you scrap a decayed ship?  I.e. it takes $20B to return to service a $10B ship that has decayed for 10 turns, but I can scrap to get $2.5B?  If the answer is 'no', then I expect decay to be never used as it's to punitive.  (Even a hypothetical 0% mothball without decay seems marginal compared to 25% value now for nations in a competitive situation.)

[marcussmythe]

You can scrap a ship thats in the process of rotting away.

As for scrap value - decay is in some ways less brutal to a ship than getting huge holes punched in it, and the nature of the work necessary to bring her back online is different as well.  So I'm comfortable with a ship thats decayed 'scrapping' at full scrap value - most of the money you get back from scrapping is from big, solid, not-going-to-decay-anyway things - gun barrels and germanium cores and armor plate, etc.  This is imperfectly realistic, but weve gone as far down the 'decay curves and retained value of This System Vs That System' rabbit hole as I care to go.

[Jester Motley]

FYI- made minor edits to my turn post, correcting the turn # (it's turn 5 not 3) and corrected the header for the Javelin, labeling it such and not the dupe parapet label it was.

[truetanker]

I still wish you GMs would affix to the main google doc page the various year maps, just list them as we gain / lose a turn ( 10 year decade ).  That way others besides us can follow our debacle.

But a question for the masses, do you think we should be able to use outsiders for our little game? Like hiring Disheartened mercs sick of their parent faction who will work for money and Escaping Dissidents, those peoples looking for a better home from their current ones, because of war or persecutions...

TT

[Lagrange]

Do "secret yards" (such as the FWL has) have any additional construction or operation costs compared to normal yards?

[Smegish]

Entirely fluff