System Monitor style Warships and random ideas

[RifleMech]

What about the CCS Ancestral Home?  She was essentially a monitor after her KF drive was crippled.  The Coyotes heavily upgraded her with armour and weapons.  By extrapolation, if you can convert a existing warship into a 'monitor', you can build one.  The main question is whether you spend the C-Bills on a fixed battlestation or a monitor that is one step away from being a warship.  Now, if you are the rich Terran Hegemony or the Federated Commonwealth, you can load up on ships of this sort to protect fixed sites.  Honestly, it does not seem logical to do otherwise.

Yes you could build one but why intentionally build a warship with a broken KF Drive? It can only defend the location it's built in and not every system has a ship yard. It'd be better to build a working warship.  If you want a fixed unit with more weight for weapons, go with the Space Station.

[Warship]

Exactly.

I did use HMAero to design a 100,000 monitor for a campaign.  The Blood Spirits used 12 of them to supplement their warship fleet and break the Adder blockade.  At a cost of under 500M C-Bills with a 6/9 Thrust, they were able to take out the drives of slower larger Adder vessels after surviving a full broadside.  They could ride on any warship or jumpship using just one hardpoint. 

Although, it was a fun campaign.  It did leave me wondering about the fairness of their use.  A strange thing, though, I was reminded of H. Beam Piper's Space Viking, where there were monitors in use for planetary system defense.

[Daryk]

As far as capital weapons, don't forget DropShips can mount missile launchers.  Once you embrace nukes, they'll do just fine...  ^-^

[Talen5000]

So, I've been looking at the Battletech ship design system and it is rather comprehensive. More so than I would believe.

Is there any way to have what is essentially a 'system monitor' style warship, where the KF drive isn't installed? Just asking because I'm kind of 'shopping' for shipbuilding ideas right now and Battletech's is one of the simpler and more intuitive ones I've seen so far.

Under the current system rules?

No.

My own House rules split the KF drive into a spine and drive combo, with the spine taking up 30% of the mass but providing the necessary reinforcement to accommodate capital scale armour and non-missile weapons. That limits the increase in space to about 15% of the ship mass but those are House rules.

There isn't any real equivalent to a capital scale vessels that doesn't have a KF drive installed within the legal construction system, though one of the XTROs (boondoggles) does have a small entry on the matter. The article basically states that Monitors were deemed ineffective as the strategic insystem mobility of a KF drive vessel provided more than enough of a force multiplier to counter a Monitors increased weaponry. The result was bad enough that interest in the concept faded as it wasn't believed to be worth the cost of pursuing until the SDS system rendered the idea moot.

The closest ingame equivalent would be "Pocket WarShips". The real problem is that the rules aren't set up to handle a Monitor type vessel and therefore without the core, they are far cheaper, and more heavily armed and armoured than a regular WarShip. Part of the problem here lies with the basic assumptions and concepts used. For example, it would, IMO, have been better if the standard KF drive was used by WarShips and limited to 500kTons, while the Compact Drive was relegated to merchant vessels. But those decisions were made decades ago.

 

Also, I think we can solve this 'better than antimatter in thrust' bit with one simple change of propellant: water. Water as a propellant would reduce the propellant velocity (and the delta-v) to somewhere between a third and a quarter of hydrogen, but the acceleration profile is phenomenal besides. You could also use things like methane and decane as well but those would get expensive.

IIRC - the problem here is that the velocities and efficiencies provided are impossible as it would require supraluminal exhaust. If the rules were to be redone with realism in mind, you'd probably want to increase fuel usage and armour mass, but decrease the mass of the structure and engine. You might eb able to do something with metallic hydrogen, but as it is, it's just one of those things you just can't pay too much attention to. A bit like JumpSails

[Daryk]

That would also VASTLY increase the fuel consumption...

[Hellraiser]

I did use HMAero to design a 100,000 monitor for a campaign.  The Blood Spirits used 12 of them to supplement their warship fleet and break the Adder blockade.  At a cost of under 500M C-Bills with a 6/9 Thrust, they were able to take out the drives of slower larger Adder vessels after surviving a full broadside.  They could ride on any warship or jumpship using just one hardpoint. 

The problem there is the original price rules happened to dump most of the price of a warship into the KF.  (And Docking Collars)

Even "if" a monitor was possible, it wouldn't be at the insane low prices of a Warship w/o KF.

The raw materials needed in WS construction should be far more than just the KF Drive IMO.

Monitors wouldn't have been nearly so cool if 1/2 the KF weight was still used as mass for the structure & 2/3 of the KF cost was spread out to other ship components.

They should never be cheaper than an equivalent Dropship & shouldn't be able to ride a on a Docking Collar at all.

[RifleMech]

As far as capital weapons, don't forget DropShips can mount missile launchers.  Once you embrace nukes, they'll do just fine...  ^-^

That's part of the problem. The only capital weapons dropships can mount are missile launchers. They should be able to mount the full array of warship weapons. I believe they don't because players would defend planets with fleets of these "Monitors" and Warship fleets would disappear in favor of Jumpships carrying more "Monitors".

Thing is a Monitor does not equal the Yamato or the Iowa. It's like a frigate with one or two battleship guns, at best. They're meant to be scary to smaller warships. Larger Warships would be annoyed and then swat them out of existence. I do think a dropship should mount the other capital weapons however they should be limited as they are on actual Monitors.
 

[Daryk]

Hilariously, one of the other warship design threads is pointing out the improved efficiency of non-capital weapons...

[Jellico]

200 ERPPCs per arc for the win.

[Daryk]

Shouldn't that be 210, for 3 bays of 70?  ???

[RifleMech]

70 ER PPC
490 tons
525 DHS
1,015 total tons
700 (70) damage
Long Range
24,150,000 Cost

N Light PPC
1400 tons
53 DHS
1453 total tons
70 (7) damage
Long Range
2,001,518 Cost
Ortillery

I don't know.  :-\ The ER PPCs would be nasty in space  >:D but the cost is astronomical.  :o Twelve times that of the Light Naval PPC. Plus they can't be used for Ortillery.  :'(

[BATTLEMASTER]

70 ER PPC
490 tons
525 DHS
1,015 total tons
700 (70) damage
Long Range
24,150,000 Cost

N Light PPC
1400 tons
53 DHS
1453 total tons
70 (7) damage
Long Range
2,001,518 Cost
Ortillery

I don't know.  :-\ The ER PPCs would be nasty in space  >:D but the cost is astronomical.  :o Twelve times that of the Light Naval PPC. Plus they can't be used for Ortillery.  :'(

Don't forget that capital weapons have a distinct range advantage over standard-scale weapons through longer range brackets.

Regarding the Ancestral Home, I can't help but think that Coyote scientists figured out a way to tweak its malfunctioning jump core to become some kind of a shield generator, teleporting most weapons fire into an alternate dimension, a nearby star, or something. That's purely speculation, though.

I would love it if dropships could mount all capital weapons. Missiles only lacks some flavor, IMO.  But imagine what a Fortress dropship could do with a NAC/20 in its nose while deployed planet-side  >:D

[RifleMech]

Don't forget that capital weapons have a distinct range advantage over standard-scale weapons through longer range brackets.

Yeah. I think I'd stick with capital weapons as they can be used for ortillery.

Regarding the Ancestral Home, I can't help but think that Coyote scientists figured out a way to tweak its malfunctioning jump core to become some kind of a shield generator, teleporting most weapons fire into an alternate dimension, a nearby star, or something. That's purely speculation, though.

I would love it if dropships could mount all capital weapons. Missiles only lacks some flavor, IMO.  But imagine what a Fortress dropship could do with a NAC/20 in its nose while deployed planet-side  >:D

 >:D

Imagine a Leapard strafing with a NL35.  >:D

[dgorsman]

DropShips can carry sub-capital weapons.  Not quite as good as capital ones in damage but certainly good enough in range and purpose.

[Jellico]

 >:D

Imagine a Leapard strafing with a NL35.  >:D

Oh my gawd. A 1800 ton unit doing the damage of a Mech!!!


In space a capital weapon has a range and accuracy (with bracketing) advantage over conventional weapons.
Also in space you can't stop someone closing to short range if they feel like it. In the example above the PPCs are 2/3 the weight (the example forgot fire control) and do 10 times the damage. What could you spend the extra on?
I am not advocating it but it is a design choice most people who customise large craft rapidly stumble across.

[BATTLEMASTER]

Oh my gawd. A 1800 ton unit doing the damage of a Mech!!!

To be fair, isn't that 35 points standard-scale damage with a large blast radius?  Could be amusing!

[RifleMech]

Oh my gawd. A 1800 ton unit doing the damage of a Mech!!!


In space a capital weapon has a range and accuracy (with bracketing) advantage over conventional weapons.
Also in space you can't stop someone closing to short range if they feel like it. In the example above the PPCs are 2/3 the weight (the example forgot fire control) and do 10 times the damage. What could you spend the extra on?
I am not advocating it but it is a design choice most people who customise large craft rapidly stumble across.

Fun huh?  >:D

I'm not sure I got this right. The Fire Control and Power Systems for 70 ERPPCs would weigh 514.5 tons? If that's right. The ER PPCs would weigh 76.5 tons more than the Naval LPPC.

To be fair, isn't that 35 points standard-scale damage with a large blast radius?  Could be amusing!

More amusing is a strafing attack is 5 hexes long.  >:D

[Hellraiser]

I do miss the good old days of AT1 Strafing that was the entire map board long & 3 hexes wide.

[Hellraiser]

I am not advocating it but it is a design choice most people who customise large craft rapidly stumble across.

I agree, and yet, I find where I actually like using this tactic is when customizing BS bays.

I like my blackwater spaceships to have the feel of my bluewater WW2 ships.

I like the Fore/Aft Side bays for capital guns.  It gives them arcs that I "feel" are as close to the big main gun turrets of WW2 Battleships.

Meanwhile my Nose/Rear bays normally only have 0-2 Capital scale guns & my BS bays have none.  I layer in Anti-Fighter weapons the way you'd have 50-cal MGs lining the sides of WW2 ships.

I know its not quite how AT standards were meant to be played, but its just how I mimic the layout & get at least 1 bay where I don't feel "too bad" about the massed mech scale weapons.

I also don't go overboard with hundreds of guns in those arcs.  My typical bay is actually often just the 20 limit or some multiple of it at 40/60.  But no higher then that.

Right now a BattleShip I'm working on has 39 guns per BS Arc in 6 different bays.   (9-AMS, 9-AMS, 6-LRM20Art, 5-LPL, 5-LPL, 5-LPL)   Designed to keep missiles & fighters honest at close range.

[glitterboy2098]

What about the CCS Ancestral Home?  She was essentially a monitor after her KF drive was crippled.  The Coyotes heavily upgraded her with armour and weapons.  By extrapolation, if you can convert a existing warship into a 'monitor', you can build one.  The main question is whether you spend the C-Bills on a fixed battlestation or a monitor that is one step away from being a warship.  Now, if you are the rich Terran Hegemony or the Federated Commonwealth, you can load up on ships of this sort to protect fixed sites.  Honestly, it does not seem logical to do otherwise.

her KF drive was fully intact.. just damaged. it could even initiate a jump, as it did to take out the Leviathan prime. . they just couldn't be sure the ship would survive the jump.

the modifications they made involved stripping out parts of the rather large (287.2K tons) cargo areas of the Texas class to install other systems. these were mods that could in theory be used on any texas clas, at the expense of reduced operational endurance. (an issue that the Ancestral Home did not have to worry about. why do you need cargo space to store a decade's worth of fuel, parts, and supplies when you are never more than a couple days away from resupply?)
(it is also likely that a large chunk of that tonnage actually went into crew quarters, as the vessel was being used as a training vessel for naval and marine sibkos. it would not have been hard to just install another thousand plus steerage quarters for cadets (allowing the ship to sail with both an experienced crew and a full crew of cadets), or even facilities for a full naval academy curriculum.)

[RifleMech]

I do miss the good old days of AT1 Strafing that was the entire map board long & 3 hexes wide.

Me too. 

[idea weenie]

Yes you could build one but why intentionally build a warship with a broken KF Drive? It can only defend the location it's built in and not every system has a ship yard. It'd be better to build a working warship.  If you want a fixed unit with more weight for weapons, go with the Space Station.

The problem with combat space stations is that they effectively have no combat maneuverability, their weapons range is the same as a starship's, and any hit to their SI pops them like a balloon.  Anyone attacking can just go around the space station, and blockade/isolate it to let it starve.  Currently shoving a bunch of ASF and Small Craft into a Space Station is a better deal due to the range advantage.

We need rules for armored stations (i.e. space stations with higher SI) to make proper battle stations.  Get rid of rules about armor limitations per SI, so if the designer wants an armored bowling ball with high rotation speed and a single Naval Laser, they can have it.  Add notes about which items cannot be mounted behind armor (i.e. Solar sails, Repair Bays, etc) so if enemy fire strikes the battlestation then those items don't get any benefit from the station's SI or armor plating.

What would be nice is heavier weapons that do longer range damage.  So a space station has the mass to throw at weapons to give them more range, while warships have almost half of their mass dedicated to the KF core.  Rules wise for an example would be 4 NL linked together and getting double the range, but still the damage of only one NL.  So 4* the tonnage, Fire Control, heat, but only double the range, and the damage remains the same (so 4 NL-55 would only do the damage of a NL-55, but it would have 2* the range).

Also add in a larger range for space stations and satellites.  Currently, if you want to make something tactically immobile that is over 200 tons but less than 2000 tons, you don't have an option.  (Satellites are 1-200 tons, and Space Stations are 2 kilotons - 2.5 Megatons)

[Daryk]

Divide SI tonnage by 3 and add 60 can get you quite a bit of armor, but I agree, "battlestations" should be able to mount even more.

[RifleMech]

The problem with combat space stations is that they effectively have no combat maneuverability, their weapons range is the same as a starship's, and any hit to their SI pops them like a balloon.  Anyone attacking can just go around the space station, and blockade/isolate it to let it starve.  Currently shoving a bunch of ASF and Small Craft into a Space Station is a better deal due to the range advantage.

One could say the same thing about castles but they still have value. You can't get to targets near them without coming under their influence.

We need rules for armored stations (i.e. space stations with higher SI) to make proper battle stations.  Get rid of rules about armor limitations per SI, so if the designer wants an armored bowling ball with high rotation speed and a single Naval Laser, they can have it.  Add notes about which items cannot be mounted behind armor (i.e. Solar sails, Repair Bays, etc) so if enemy fire strikes the battlestation then those items don't get any benefit from the station's SI or armor plating.

I don't know why the SI Rules for Warships couldn't be used. That would allow more armor on Battlestations. As for the rest. I have no idea how you'd implement that. One item and the whole section can't be armored? It'd be better to just have those items damaged on a hit to that location, armor or no.

What would be nice is heavier weapons that do longer range damage.  So a space station has the mass to throw at weapons to give them more range, while warships have almost half of their mass dedicated to the KF core.  Rules wise for an example would be 4 NL linked together and getting double the range.

This I wouldn't agree with. Larger greater ranged weapons, sure. Just doubling the range of existing weapons? Not so much. I can see a bonus to strike since the station is stationary but that's a double edged sword.

Also add in a larger range for space stations and satellites.  Currently, if you want to make something tactically immobile that is over 200 tons but less than 2000 tons, you don't have an option.  (Satellites are 1-200 tons, and Space Stations are 2 kilotons - 2.5 Megatons)

Satellites can get up to 300 tons now but I agree that there should be something between 300 and 2000 tons.

[Talen5000]

We need rules for armored stations (i.e. space stations with higher SI) to make proper battle stations

Use the rules for WarShips with a static power plant

What would be nice is heavier weapons that do longer range damage.

There is a lot of stuff like that missing

[Daryk]

Station Keeping drives aren't really stationary, though.  They beat everything we have now, and then some...

[Hellraiser]

Use the rules for WarShips with a static power plant

This.

It got me thinking about how the Death Star moves around.

A 1/2 Warship is slow tactically but still very mobile in the system.

Add in a KF drive to allow it to re-position itself to different systems & I think that would work fairly well.

[Daryk]

A 1/2 WarShip can have a maximum SI of 60 (30 x Max Thrust).  For a 100,000 ton ship, this would weigh 6,000 tons (60 x 100,000 / 1,000).  This means it could mount 6,000 / 50 = 120 tons of armor.  A 100,000 ton Space Station pays 1,000 tons for it's SI of 1, and can mount 1,000 / 3 + 60 = 393.5 tons of armor.  At 2.5M tons, the first becomes 3,000, whereas the second becomes 8,393.5 tons.

[idea weenie]

One could say the same thing about castles but they still have value. You can't get to targets near them without coming under their influence.

Castles were also built in strategic locations (i.e. at the mouth of a valley, along a trade route, etc).  In space the strategic locations are the Pirate points, and maybe the Jump Zones.  Anything else is open plains, where both sides can see each other, but stay out of archery distance.  You can't park a space station within weapons range to defend the spaceport or capital, as if the Space station is low enough to provide protection its orbit is not the same as the planet's rotation and it will pass on by.  If you park the space station so it is geostationary, it will be too far out to provide direct weapons fire.

A Castle can send out troops to engage enemies at a distance, but has an advantage in that if attacked it can take multiple hits without popping.

Current Space station rules are like saying you can only mount an amount of armor proportional to how fast the unit can go.  Since Space Stations cannot go anywhere easily, that limits their SI and armor.  With those limitations they are not castles, they are more like a town with its walls made of flat sheets of wood leaning up against buildings.  Cheap?  Yes.  Easy to set up?  Yes.  Lots of storage capacity to survive a siege?  Yes.  Great for putting a bunch of cavalry inside to deal with attackers?  Yes.  Useful if it gets attacked by enemies?  No

I don't know why the SI Rules for Warships couldn't be used. That would allow more armor on Battlestations. As for the rest. I have no idea how you'd implement that. One item and the whole section can't be armored? It'd be better to just have those items damaged on a hit to that location, armor or no.

Apologies, I meant that if you have a Repair Bay, the Bay cannot be armored, but the station attached to it can be.  You are exactly right.  External items get damaged on hits, internal items don't (until the armor fails)

This I wouldn't agree with. Larger greater ranged weapons, sure. Just doubling the range of existing weapons? Not so much. I can see a bonus to strike since the station is stationary but that's a double edged sword.

Yeah, I was making an idea where if you put together 4 NL-55, you get the damage of a single NL-55 at double range.  Forgot about that detail, sorry.

Satellites can get up to 300 tons now but I agree that there should be something between 300 and 2000 tons.

I'd like to have the option for space station and satellite sizes ranging from 1 ton to 2.5 MT.  You can't really mount anything on a Space station of 1 ton, but it would allow for future rules expansion.  A satellite massing 2.5 MTons can mount a lot, but the amount of time needed for external maintenance means it will be spending a lot of time in a Repair Bay.

That could be a useful difference:
Space Station: free-floating orbital structure that is capable of performing self-maintenance or even repair using parts provided from internal storage
Satellite: free-floating orbital structure that is not capable of performing self-maintenance or self-repair (cheaper per ton)

So a satellite could have a Repair Bay attached to itself, but it can only repair items within the Repair Bay, not itself.  A Space station could use repair materials to patch holes in its own structure.

You could even have a manned satellite, but when that satellite needs repairs, it has to be picked up by someone else to have the repairs done (though humans can be very creative when it comes to wanting to stay alive).

I suppose you could build a 'Space Station' that is one ton and use fractional math to put in structure and the rest as cargo, then drop off life support for the person in the cargo bay.  Strap some solar film on the outside to power a flashing light/radio beacon, and leave the poor person in there for 10 days all by themselves.  No windows, and assuming .25 density, that is only 4 cubic meters of volume, or a sphere just under 2 meters wide on the outside.  So 10 days with no windows, no proper bathroom, no gravity, unable to stand up straight, and no way to talk to anyone else.  Solitary confinement away from everyone

[RifleMech]

Castles were also built in strategic locations (i.e. at the mouth of a valley, along a trade route, etc).  In space the strategic locations are the Pirate points, and maybe the Jump Zones.  Anything else is open plains, where both sides can see each other, but stay out of archery distance.  You can't park a space station within weapons range to defend the spaceport or capital, as if the Space station is low enough to provide protection its orbit is not the same as the planet's rotation and it will pass on by.  If you park the space station so it is geostationary, it will be too far out to provide direct weapons fire.

A Castle can send out troops to engage enemies at a distance, but has an advantage in that if attacked it can take multiple hits without popping.

Current Space station rules are like saying you can only mount an amount of armor proportional to how fast the unit can go.  Since Space Stations cannot go anywhere easily, that limits their SI and armor.  With those limitations they are not castles, they are more like a town with its walls made of flat sheets of wood leaning up against buildings.  Cheap?  Yes.  Easy to set up?  Yes.  Lots of storage capacity to survive a siege?  Yes.  Great for putting a bunch of cavalry inside to deal with attackers?  Yes.  Useful if it gets attacked by enemies?  No

Well, Space Stations aren't completely stationary so they can get into weapon range to conduct ortillery attacks. Also depending on where its parked in relation to the jump point could mean a difference in where the attacking dropships can land which could mean longer distances that the ground troops have to travel to hit the target. And if, Daryk's numbers are right, and I don't know why they wouldn't be a Space Station can mount three times the armor a same tonnage warship can. So they're not that vulnerable.

Apologies, I meant that if you have a Repair Bay, the Bay cannot be armored, but the station attached to it can be.  You are exactly right.  External items get damaged on hits, internal items don't (until the armor fails)

Thanks. That makes more sense but wouldn't pressurized bays be internal and thus covered by armor?

Yeah, I was making an idea where if you put together 4 NL-55, you get the damage of a single NL-55 at double range.  Forgot about that detail, sorry.

Why not have ER versions of Naval Lasers? Or make larger Lasers like a NL240?

I'd like to have the option for space station and satellite sizes ranging from 1 ton to 2.5 MT.  You can't really mount anything on a Space station of 1 ton, but it would allow for future rules expansion.  A satellite massing 2.5 MTons can mount a lot, but the amount of time needed for external maintenance means it will be spending a lot of time in a Repair Bay.

That could be a useful difference:
Space Station: free-floating orbital structure that is capable of performing self-maintenance or even repair using parts provided from internal storage
Satellite: free-floating orbital structure that is not capable of performing self-maintenance or self-repair (cheaper per ton)

So a satellite could have a Repair Bay attached to itself, but it can only repair items within the Repair Bay, not itself.  A Space station could use repair materials to patch holes in its own structure.

You could even have a manned satellite, but when that satellite needs repairs, it has to be picked up by someone else to have the repairs done (though humans can be very creative when it comes to wanting to stay alive).

I would just continue how things are now. Satellites go up to a certain size and then they become Space Stations. I would also think with unmanned satellites sitting out in space for a long time that maintenance isn't that big an issue. Manned satellites I would think would need more routine maintenance, even if its just to the life support systems. A tech should be able to do that if they've got the parts.

I suppose you could build a 'Space Station' that is one ton and use fractional math to put in structure and the rest as cargo, then drop off life support for the person in the cargo bay.  Strap some solar film on the outside to power a flashing light/radio beacon, and leave the poor person in there for 10 days all by themselves.  No windows, and assuming .25 density, that is only 4 cubic meters of volume, or a sphere just under 2 meters wide on the outside.  So 10 days with no windows, no proper bathroom, no gravity, unable to stand up straight, and no way to talk to anyone else.  Solitary confinement away from everyone

That sounds like a satellite. I also think it'd be easier to just stick them in a tiny closet on a dropship or other aerospace than to make a another vehicle. If you're going to make a punishment satellite make it so that it has a purpose. Like putting weapons on it to attack passing fighters or something.