Author Topic: WSotW - Texas (Read 29740 times)

marauder648 · « **Reply #30 on:** 31 January 2013, 17:55:31 »

I'm really going to have to read the wars of reavening again. I did wonder how the home clans destroyed a Leviathan Prime (and wonder just how they got the resources to build such a behemoth too). So many questions about the Home clans remain after the Reavening wars, considering they all seem to have gone ultra-crusader (those who were not destroyed or got out whilst the going was good), could they come and strike at the invader clans and the inner sphere...but thats a question for another thread.

Jellico · « **Reply #31 on:** 31 January 2013, 17:58:09 »

Quote from: Fallen_Raven on 31 January 2013, 14:01:14

The other way to visualize that is a Macross Beam Cannon. When you're up against a twelve gun bay, it probably feels like an all consuming mile wide death ray at least! :o

You probably can't see capital lasers. A lack of dust etc in space. You just die.

Quote from: wantec on 31 January 2013, 15:31:15

What kind of mods (other than the LF batteries) did the Clans make, if any?

Cosmetic
Harjel
LF battery
Computer systems. (yes this is mentioned in fluff) Clan ships need less crew.

Personally I see no reason not to mount Titans. It's a defense in depth thing. On-ship ASF are point defense.

The lack of LF battery is probably doctrinal. McKennas represent the change point, followed by their mass production. Note battle cruisers make a come back after the McKenna, probably as a cheap way to make up for the missing close support of the old Luxors, Farraguts and Texas.

Quote from: marauder648 on 31 January 2013, 17:55:31

I'm really going to have to read the wars of reavening again. I did wonder how the home clans destroyed a Leviathan Prime (and wonder just how they got the resources to build such a behemoth too). So many questions about the Home clans remain after the Reavening wars, considering they all seem to have gone ultra-crusader (those who were not destroyed or got out whilst the going was good), could they come and strike at the invader clans and the inner sphere...but thats a question for another thread.

Guns, lots of guns. It is not that hard.

SCC · « **Reply #32 on:** 31 January 2013, 18:15:52 »

Clans only get better armor at WarShip scale right? And why can't WS's mount Ferro-Aluminum?

Wrangler · « **Reply #33 on:** 31 January 2013, 22:50:59 »

I'd like throw question which properly won't be answered.

The original stats for the Texas, which matches the 3057 stats. Without the weapon bay groupings, would ship's fire power been more effective? Having alot more weapons firing, instead of all in one shot bays seem increase odds of doing some damage to somebody's ride.

I know there wasn't game system for the original TRO: 2750 stats for the Warships, but i keep looking and wondering.

Weirdo · « **Reply #34 on:** 31 January 2013, 23:21:42 »

There are rules for firing individual weapons instead of bays in StratOps. I haven't tried them yet, but they probably would indeed give you much better odds of doing some damage to the target. On the other hand, you'd lose immensely on threshold crits - by themselves, those lasers won't crit anything bigger than an Essex. It would take almost forever to actually inflict meaningful damage to a cruiser or another battleship.

Quote from: SCC on 31 January 2013, 18:15:52

Clans only get better armor at WarShip scale right?

Clan advanced armors are better than IS all the way from BA on up.

Wrangler · « **Reply #35 on:** 01 February 2013, 08:30:39 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 31 January 2013, 23:21:42

There are rules for firing individual weapons instead of bays in StratOps. I haven't tried them yet, but they probably would indeed give you much better odds of doing some damage to the target. On the other hand, you'd lose immensely on threshold crits - by themselves, those lasers won't crit anything bigger than an Essex. It would take almost forever to actually inflict meaningful damage to a cruiser or another battleship.

Clan advanced armors are better than IS all the way from BA on up.

Well, the way I was looking at the old stats, was since there was no threshold crits, so the ships like the Texas won't get nerfed early in the fight. The Armor amounts were setup from looks of it to handle way the ships would be firing, individually. Game would go longer as well, since WarShip battles (with normal rules) end up being quick affairs.

Dark_Falcon · « **Reply #36 on:** 02 February 2013, 02:30:11 »

Quote from: Moonsword on 31 January 2013, 17:40:27

They're the most heavily armored unit in the game, so no. Weirdo's correct on the details there.

As for the Ancestral Home, the K-F drive wasn't yanked. She had previously been modified in an unknown fashion and demonstrated considerable resilience under fire. What's known is that in close action with the Perigard Zalman, the Home's K-F drive spiked and created a hyperspace bubble that nearly immediately collapsed. Home suffered from a great deal of feedback while half the of the Zalman was ripped away and "flattened".

Repeat after me: Hyperspace is not a toy.

Just so. The Ancestral Home basically did the same thing as the FSS Kentares had done at the 1st Naval Battle of New Avalon in 3066: She made a suicide use of her K-F Drive to destroy a larger and more heavily armed ship she otherwise would not have been able to defeat.

Maelwys · « **Reply #37 on:** 02 February 2013, 04:04:52 »

Just a side note, the (Failed) M-6 Class of the Star League's SDS was based on the Texas-class, but they had trouble with rewiring such a large ship, and the prototype destroyed itself when it slammed into Pluto.

FM:SLDF also lets us know where about 9 Texases were stationed prior to the Periphery Uprising.

SCC · « **Reply #38 on:** 02 February 2013, 04:19:56 »

Just had a thought about the SDS Drones, we know that they didn't exactly do a lot of jumping about and that they were based on normal WarShips, did the SLDF use Compact Cores or did they breakout the primitive rules and put normal cores in them (ditching any collars in the process) to cut down costs?

Liam's Ghost · « **Reply #39 on:** 02 February 2013, 04:43:00 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 31 January 2013, 13:57:46

Absolutely. As a Star League ship, the Texas was designed from the start to operate as part of a mutually supporting fleet.

Amusingly, the Texas' support in this case has a good chance of starting with multiple McKennas and working its way down.

Alexander Knight · « **Reply #40 on:** 02 February 2013, 05:07:17 »

Quote from: SCC on 02 February 2013, 04:19:56

Just had a thought about the SDS Drones, we know that they didn't exactly do a lot of jumping about and that they were based on normal WarShips, did the SLDF use Compact Cores or did they breakout the primitive rules and put normal cores in them (ditching any collars in the process) to cut down costs?

We have the stats for the CASPAR drones. It should be easy enough to retro-engineer.

cold1 · « **Reply #41 on:** 02 February 2013, 08:58:47 »

Quote from: marauder648 on 31 January 2013, 17:27:42

Blimey! Now correct me if i'm wrong but isn't a Leviathan Prime more a heavy gunboat but less protected, an enlarged McKenna basically.

If you live "south" of the Chainlane Islands you don't want to know what a Lev Prime is or does. If the homeworlds manage to build more (it's a stretch but they have the plans and the slip to build them) and decide to rage on somebody in the sphere after 3145... good luck.

marauder648 · « **Reply #42 on:** 02 February 2013, 11:30:17 »

And considering the changes in the home clans towards spheroid behaviour, I reckon they would be raging on the IS when they can get the strength to do so.

Crunch · « **Reply #43 on:** 02 February 2013, 19:01:25 »

Quote from: cold1 on 02 February 2013, 08:58:47

If you live "south" of the Chainlane Islands you don't want to know what a Lev Prime is or does. If the homeworlds manage to build more (it's a stretch but they have the plans and the slip to build them) and decide to rage on somebody in the sphere after 3145... good luck.

The hurdles for the Home Worlds building a Lev Prime are significantly greater than the hurdles facing any of the IS powers going into mass production of War Ships.

I don't see either happening, but invoking a new build Lev Prime is about the same as invoking an AFFS flotilla with 100 Foxes.

Isanova · « **Reply #44 on:** 02 February 2013, 20:24:51 »

As for the battle of the Ancestral Home, any word on how much support she had? Knowing it was on the defensive she probably had a huge swath of planet-based ASF and Dropships to sort of balance things a bit.

Quote from: Moonsword on 31 January 2013, 17:40:27

Repeat after me: Hyperspace is not a toy.

No, it's a plot device :-)

Any word on crew and marines, how hard is it to board a Texas-class? Given it's armor factor it's probably far more likely than most to have movement crits and maintain integrity long enough for boarding parties to get into the mix. Can anyone with experience / knowledge of this in AT2R terms and AToW terms? Just out of curiosity and for completeness sake

Isanova · « **Reply #45 on:** 02 February 2013, 20:30:01 »

BTW... "Eyes of Texas" would be an awesome battle-song. Think I'll adopt if for any games I play with my Lone Star Regiment remnants.

Weirdo · « **Reply #46 on:** 02 February 2013, 20:34:21 »

Quote from: SCC on 02 February 2013, 04:19:56

Just had a thought about the SDS Drones, we know that they didn't exactly do a lot of jumping about and that they were based on normal WarShips, did the SLDF use Compact Cores or did they breakout the primitive rules and put normal cores in them (ditching any collars in the process) to cut down costs?

We have full stats and everything, there is no speculation needed of any kind for Caspars. They are full WarShips, and like all WarShips, have compact cores.

Stormlion1 · « **Reply #47 on:** 03 February 2013, 23:31:20 »

Well, I could see the Homeworlds building another few Battleships, but not a Leviathan. Just too rescource intensive. I could see them digging the plans for the Texas and the Mckenna out though.

Maelwys · « **Reply #48 on:** 04 February 2013, 00:31:41 »

Quote from: Stormlion1 on 03 February 2013, 23:31:20

Well, I could see the Homeworlds building another few Battleships, but not a Leviathan. Just too rescource intensive. I could see them digging the plans for the Texas and the Mckenna out though.

Why not though? We know the Star Adders made off with the shipyard for the Leviathan Prime, and they should know that the Ghost Bears have one or two Leviathan IIs sitting around. Why not build a hard counter to it incase the tainted ones come visiting? Its unlikely that they really know about the Inner Sphere's switch to a PWS-centric Navy. For all they know the Ghost Bears are using their vast Inner Sphere resources to fund more.

Why build designs that are 500 years and an entire tech revolution out of date, instead of a cutting edge, Clantech monstrosity that was only stopped by extraordinary circumstances?

Orin J. · « **Reply #49 on:** 04 February 2013, 00:52:02 »

Quote from: Maelwys on 04 February 2013, 00:31:41

Why build designs that are 500 years and an entire tech revolution out of date, instead of a cutting edge, Clantech monstrosity that was only stopped by extraordinary circumstances?

......Why start entirely from scratch when there's fine, efficent designs perfectly suitable for reworking with the newest in clan tech into suitable monstrosities that can only stopped by extraordinary circumstances?

Maelwys · « **Reply #50 on:** 04 February 2013, 01:13:59 »

Quote from: Orin J. on 04 February 2013, 00:52:02

......Why start entirely from scratch when there's fine, efficent designs perfectly suitable for reworking with the newest in clan tech into suitable monstrosities that can only stopped by extraordinary circumstances?

But they wouldn't be starting from scratch, they've got the Leviathan Prime's shipyard, and presumably the ability to build new ones.

Its not like I'm advocating a brand new ship, I'm suggesting building a design that the Clans have already built. One that doesn't need to be designed from the ground up, nor one that tries to update an existing vessel.

I like the Texas and the McKenna, but I don't see any reason for the Clans to go to them when they have a modern design already, and the facilities to produce it.

Isanova · « **Reply #51 on:** 04 February 2013, 04:20:21 »

I think something akin to the Nightlord is a lot more viable if they wanted to push for something like that.

Remember the clan worlds are relatively resource-poor, and even at it's height the CGB with all their inner sphere holdings to draw on for sheer mineral resources could not do it alone. I doubt even three clans working together could do so in the new age, particularly after the reaving they took loosing engineering and technical skilled officers to the Society. Having the factories and even knowhow to build a Magnum .45 doesn't always make sense when four 1911's will do the same job for the same effort.

Decoy · « **Reply #52 on:** 04 February 2013, 05:48:41 »

Not quite right. The Clan Homeworlds are poorly exploited due to the nature of the Trial system. Due to that, few worlds in the Clan Homeworlds have barely even scratched their available resource potential. As it stands, the only real limiter to the amount of warships of any caliber is the role the Powers That Be wish them to fulfill.

Back on the topic of the Texas, the Texas was the ship I pitted against the Agamemnon to prove how borked BV is for Battleships. The Agamemnon fared well by exploiting weaknesses in the Texas's weapons arcs, but when the Agamemnon could no longer keep her range....the Texas obliterated her.

Maelwys · « **Reply #53 on:** 04 February 2013, 06:10:14 »

The Clan Homeworlds have been said to be relatively resource poor, but at this point in time, those resources are only split 4 ways instead of 17. Each Clan gets a larger chunk. The Ghost Bears started working on the Leviathan in 3044, which means they thought they could do it with the resources that they had prior to the invasion. Sure, they needed some help doing it, but that was technical issues, rather than resource issues (in fact, in order to get the technical issues solved by the Snow Ravens, the Ghost Bears actually traded AWAY some of their resources).

The Nightlord may be more tenable as a lighter design, but its entirely possible that the factories and yards for the Nightlord were either blown up during the conflict, or packed up and moved by the Snow Ravens. We know the Leviathan yards survived.

So once the Clans have managed to build themselves up again they'll have more individual resources and the yards for the Leviathan. Why not build it?

Quote from: Decoy on 04 February 2013, 05:48:41

Back on the topic of the Texas, the Texas was the ship I pitted against the Agamemnon to prove how borked BV is for Battleships. The Agamemnon fared well by exploiting weaknesses in the Texas's weapons arcs, but when the Agamemnon could no longer keep her range....the Texas obliterated her.

I'm not that surprised since a single hit from almost any of the Texas' non-missile weapons will actually strip the armor from half of the Agamemnon's locations, and leave the others with tissue paper in return. Of course, if the Agamemnon got in a few lucky hits with its NAC30 bays, the Texas could easily find itself bereft of weaponry. Not to mention I'm not sure the Killer Whales and AR10s of the Texas could get through the Agamemnon's point defense system.

Isanova · « **Reply #54 on:** 04 February 2013, 07:00:48 »

I think everything ship-built at any yard, clan or sphere or whatever, can be considered a special fabrication. That said, a yard capable of building the Levi should be able to build practically any ship they have the designs for, it's not like a post-helm mech factory. AFAIK all the clans shared all their technical specs, least before they started feuding, so the coyotes could use that yard to build anything conceivably.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #55 on:** 09 February 2013, 00:08:42 »

The Texas had the armor that the McKenna didnt. The McKenna had the firepower that the Texas didnt. I think I would take a McKenna over a Texas but that is 60/40 split.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #56 on:** 09 February 2013, 05:23:37 »

Quote from: I am Belch II on 09 February 2013, 00:08:42

The Texas had the armor that the McKenna didnt. The McKenna had the firepower that the Texas didnt. I think I would take a McKenna over a Texas but that is 60/40 split.

I think the SLN got to not have to make a choice between them!

Isanova · « **Reply #57 on:** 09 February 2013, 08:04:52 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 09 February 2013, 05:23:37

Quote from: I am Belch II on 09 February 2013, 00:08:42
The Texas had the armor that the McKenna didnt. The McKenna had the firepower that the Texas didnt. I think I would take a McKenna over a Texas but that is 60/40 split.
I think the SLN got to not have to make a choice between them!

Sure they did! They chose "Both"!

Maelwys · « **Reply #58 on:** 10 February 2013, 00:44:57 »

The scary one is the 52nd Line Squadron. Based on a McKenna, with 2 Texas-class to back it up. And then when it deploys, the Fleet's Flagship, another McKenna, joins in :)

Stormlion1 · « **Reply #59 on:** 10 February 2013, 01:18:14 »

Enough Firepower to overawe any troublemakers. Except when it isn't.