A question about Pocket Warships

[marauder648]

Re-pocket warships, I assume that they jump between systems courtesy of large jumpships, does this in essence make a Pocket warship just a very large combat dropship?

[DaveMac]

Yep but armed with capital missiles and/or subcapital lasers and/or cannons

[Korzon77]

Yeah. In essence the main difference is that pocket warships mount some combination of subcapital weapons (occassionally capital missiles). this tends to give them longer ranged fire power than assault dropships.

As a part of this, pocket warships tend to be larger and more heavily armored than most earlier assault dropships, as thier original intent was to try and find a counter to warships, a role that they were only partially successful at-- a PWS can threaten a true warship but they tend to die horribly after doing so.
 

[cray]

Re-pocket warships, I assume that they jump between systems courtesy of large jumpships, does this in essence make a Pocket warship just a very large combat dropship?

"Pocket WarShips" are only normal DropShips of any size that are armed with capital missiles and/or subcapital weapons. I believe there's even a converted Leopard-class DropShip that is a pocket WarShip.

So, basically, you can take any DropShip (even a civilian DropShip), bolt a single capital missile launcher on it, and pow! Instant pocket WarShip.

And, yes, they need normal JumpShip assistance for interstellar travel just like any other DropShip.

[I am Belch II]

"Pocket WarShips" are only normal DropShips of any size that are armed with capital missiles and/or subcapital weapons. I believe there's even a converted Leopard-class DropShip that is a pocket WarShip.

So, basically, you can take any DropShip (even a civilian DropShip), bolt a single capital missile launcher on it, and pow! Instant pocket WarShip.

And, yes, they need normal JumpShip assistance for interstellar travel just like any other DropShip.

I do remember the Leopard PW. All it had was a Capital missile launcher and a few rounds and that's it.

[Wrangler]

The Leopard Pocket WarShips are new builds which were featured in TRO:3075.

To me, depends on which class of DropShip is being listed as a Pocket WarShip.  Some are conversion jobs which are basically a space based artillery system against spacecraft or be used from orbit as form of Orbital Fire Support.

Others are purpose built assault DropShips with ability to fight other spacecraft head one, specially when their packing armor and variety of SubCapital weaponry.  Non-Capital/Sub-Capital Weapon Assault Dropships are more dog fighters in comparison, built to handle close fights with fighter and bigger boats except for WarShips in some cases.

[Weirdo]

I do remember the Leopard PW. All it had was a Capital missile launcher and a few rounds and that's it.

Actually, it retained the firepower of the 3057 Leopards(which is actually pretty nice for a ship that size, they make good light escorts), and heavily boosted the armor. I wouldn't take them solo against larger PWSes(or even certain larger conventional assault ships), but as backup for a fighter wing, they're quite solid. Also cheap enough to try for low-altitude anti-ground shots without having everyone above you from House Lord on down personally screaming at you about wasting resources. Orbital fire is MUCH more accurate when you don't have to worry about all those air hexes on the high-altitude map... >:D

[VhenRa]

Actually, it retained the firepower of the 3057 Leopards(which is actually pretty nice for a ship that size, they make good light escorts), and heavily boosted the armor. I wouldn't take them solo against larger PWSes(or even certain larger conventional assault ships), but as backup for a fighter wing, they're quite solid. Also cheap enough to try for low-altitude anti-ground shots without having everyone above you from House Lord on down personally screaming at you about wasting resources. Orbital fire is MUCH more accurate when you don't have to worry about all those air hexes on the high-altitude map... >:D

Hardly call it orbital fire though.

[Nav_Alpha]

Hey this might sound like a silly question... But do pocket warships break atmosphere much? They seem to be more about intridiction and space patrol, etc.
But do they land on planets, etc?

[Jellico]

Hey this might sound like a silly question... But do pocket warships break atmosphere much? They seem to be more about intridiction and space patrol, etc.
But do they land on planets, etc?

As stated. Pocket WarShips are DropShips with Capital or Sub Capital weapons. No more. No less.
They can land just fine, unless they have a quirk preventing it like the Nagasawa.

[cray]

What Jellico said.

Don't let the word "WarShip" throw you. Pocket WarShips are nothing like real BT WarShips. They're DropShips with a grandiose class name.

[marauder648]

Thanks for the clarification and info folks :)

[Weirdo]

Hardly call it orbital fire though.

Uses the same rules, and it's still a capital-grade weapon raning death down on the ground. Ortillery enough for me. It's not my fault if the pilot is crazy enough to go for a REALLY low orbit... }:)

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Uses the same rules, and it's still a capital-grade weapon raning death down on the ground. Ortillery enough for me. It's not my fault if the pilot is crazy enough to go for a REALLY low orbit... }:)

PWSs with Heavy Sub-Capital Cannon batteries and other short ranged capital weaponry HAVE to go down into the atmosphere to perform Ortillery strikes.. it's not a case of the pilots being crazy.

[Weirdo]

You take something as expensive as a heavy PWS into the atmosphere, you ARE crazy. It doesn't matter if it's needed to shoot at the ground.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

You take something as expensive as a heavy PWS into the atmosphere, you ARE crazy. It doesn't matter if it's needed to shoot at the ground.

Crazy like a Fox, then.

Worked pretty darn well at Palmyra.

[Weirdo]

I suspect they had total or near-total air superiority at Palmyra. Or used Nekos to do the bombarding.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I suspect they had total or near-total air superiority at Palmyra.

If you don't have troops on the ground, then delivering ortillery is normally pointless*.  And if you have troops on the ground, then you already have air superiority... and unless there's a rather robust defending aerospace force you'll usually go straight to air supremacy instead by default.

*= Palmyra is special yes, but not because the DCA had air supremacy.. but because their intel was so perfect they could direct ortillery without needing to land ground forces first to call the strikes in.

Or used Nekos to do the bombarding.

Possible, but iirc their sub-cap lasers don't peirce the atmosphere from orbit either.  It'd have taken quite a load of spare teleguided krakens to do the damage suggested.. and it's not clear there are all that many original Nekos with the Kraken-Ts still flying anyway.

[sillybrit]

Possible, but iirc their sub-cap lasers don't peirce the atmosphere from orbit either.  It'd have taken quite a load of spare teleguided krakens to do the damage suggested.. and it's not clear there are all that many original Nekos with the Kraken-Ts still flying anyway.

The Nekohono'o (SCL) is fitted with both SCL/1s and SCL2/s, and the former is capable of orbital bombardment. I have a vague memory that teleguided missiles can't be used for orbital bombardment, but at work so can't confirm, so perhaps somebody else can
check?

[Korzon77]

What Jellico said.

Don't let the word "WarShip" throw you. Pocket WarShips are nothing like real BT WarShips. They're DropShips with a grandiose class name.

Well, the first class name: "Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range" tended to cause morale problems....

[Stormlion1]

PWS's are glass hammers. Can give out a beating but one solid hit and they will shatter. Does bring up that moving them from system to system is only really useful unless you can move several at a time. A single PWS is useless unless it has some support.
Eventually someone is going to build true warships again and all those PWS's will die proving that they are a very flawed idea. Warships, even the smallest ones can take far more damage than a PWS can deliver and will be swatted away for there efforts.

[cray]

Well, the first class name: "Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range" tended to cause morale problems....

May I use that as a signature line? :)

[Korzon77]

May I use that as a signature line? :)

Certainly!

[Korzon77]

PWS's are glass hammers. Can give out a beating but one solid hit and they will shatter. Does bring up that moving them from system to system is only really useful unless you can move several at a time. A single PWS is useless unless it has some support.
Eventually someone is going to build true warships again and all those PWS's will die proving that they are a very flawed idea. Warships, even the smallest ones can take far more damage than a PWS can deliver and will be swatted away for there efforts.

Not really.  The problem is that when you think of a PWS, you really need to talk about the squadron as a "single" ship that happens to fly around in different parts.  So where a "Warship" will generally refer to a single unit, PWS's should be deployed as groups and those groups should be tactically and strategically treated as a single ship-- for example, there's no reason for the proliferation of small craft bays on PWSs-- a PWS squadron's heavy hitters should have every extra ton dedicated for guns or armor.  Nothing else.   A PWS carrier should be solely centered around the job of protecting and supplying it's fighters, and all its weapons should be oriented around that idea.  The problem is that most modern attempts to build a PWS are attempts to design a dropship sized warship, not a unit with completely different tactical needs and strengths. 

The biggest advantage of PWSs is that you will always have more of them-- canon Btech makes building warships very difficult compared to dropships so you'll have more construction yards and less of a bottle neck.  So even if you say, lose 6 PWSs for every true warship, you may very well come out ahead in terms of build capability. 

[wundergoat]

Not really.  The problem is that when you think of a PWS, you really need to talk about the squadron as a "single" ship that happens to fly around in different parts.  So where a "Warship" will generally refer to a single unit, PWS's should be deployed as groups and those groups should be tactically and strategically treated as a single ship-- for example, there's no reason for the proliferation of small craft bays on PWSs-- a PWS squadron's heavy hitters should have every extra ton dedicated for guns or armor.  Nothing else.   A PWS carrier should be solely centered around the job of protecting and supplying it's fighters, and all its weapons should be oriented around that idea.  The problem is that most modern attempts to build a PWS are attempts to design a dropship sized warship, not a unit with completely different tactical needs and strengths. 

I have to disagree with this sentiment.  While on the tabletop it is ideal for a PWS to be a thoroughbred assault ship and should operate in squadrons in a big battle (which includes anything involving a warship), practically there are strong arguments for a multirole PWS.  I think a better parallel is to think of PWS operating similarly to light cruisers in the early 1900s.  Despite fighting major engagements are a flotilla, they are also immensely useful on their own.

For instance, the 'assault carrier' type, such as Titans and the modern Vengeance-DC, is very convinient as a one-ship task force.  The fighters cover the PWS while the PWS provides ewar support and long range egg cracking firepower.  Yes, you can gain the same thing by having a thoroughbred assault ship and dedicated carrier, but then you doubled up on your dropships.

Also, spending some tons on small craft bays are immensely useful.  Besides the combat advantage of always having some onboard ewar platforms, small craft can perform light cargo transfer and long range shuttle duties.  Some extra armor and SI would of course be nice, but you lose a lot of ease of operation by dropping the 2-3 small craft bays.  Several PWS also have dedicated infantry, presumably for boarding operations.  Remember that you will be boarding cargo ships and smugglers and pirates far more often than assaulting stations or the naval vessels of another state.

The biggest advantage of PWSs is that you will always have more of them-- canon Btech makes building warships very difficult compared to dropships so you'll have more construction yards and less of a bottle neck.  So even if you say, lose 6 PWSs for every true warship, you may very well come out ahead in terms of build capability.

The problem of PWS vs a real WarShip is that the WarShip is VERY hard to kill while it will pop PWS like piñatas.  You will lose PWS in the attempt and it is virtually guaranteed that the WarShip will have escorts.  Given that a combined arms force has a distinct advantage here, I don't think 6 PWS is remotely close enough to kill an escorted WarShip, without it being a corvette or something.

I don't remember if it was on this forum or the previous one, but one user was absolutely convinced of the superiority of PWS.  He proposed that 5 of his custom jobs (armor, guns fighters) could defeat any warship short of a heavy cruiser, so a scenario was decided on where a Fox and 5 of his PWS were to go against an Agamemnon, a Vengeance, some non-PWS assault dropper, and two other random non-assault droppers.  IIRC the Aggie was pretty hurt, but the PWS got mulched.

[Wrangler]

Quick Question.   Do DropShips operate in a Squadron of 4 or 6? I know the Aerospace Squadron rules prevent them going beyond 6 if it says a level 2 or Star (10 fighters - which i believe go 6 Squadrons and 4 fighter squadron)

[Stormlion1]

Look at it this way, PWS's need jumpships to get around, nice unarmed, unarmored targets, PWS's are glass hammers-pack a punch but pop like ballons, and they compete for construction for standard dropships needed for landings and trade. At best PWS's should be used on a warships docking collars to augment there strength but used on there own is just asking to be either destroyed or worse stranded. A point would be to start targeting the transporting jumpships with fighters then retreating and then jumping away. The PWS's only have so much food, air, and fuel and will run out. Salvage operations to come later.

Or from another perspective, would you want to take on a Snow Raven flotilla with nothing but PWS's? I wouldn't.

[Weirdo]

Quick Question.   Do DropShips operate in a Squadron of 4 or 6? I know the Aerospace Squadron rules prevent them going beyond 6 if it says a level 2 or Star (10 fighters - which i believe go 6 Squadrons and 4 fighter squadron)

Assuming you're talking about Battleface, since no other ruleset allows you to put anything other than ASFs in squadrons...SO says 4 is the most common for IS navies, with the Clans predictably using 5.

[Wrangler]

Assuming you're talking about Battleface, since no other ruleset allows you to put anything other than ASFs in squadrons...SO says 4 is the most common for IS navies, with the Clans predictably using 5.

I read SO while ago, its only allowed in Battleforce rules for a squadron of DropShips?...Hopefully when/if AS picks up things that fly in space....they'll end up getting the squadron rules.

[Weirdo]

Given that AS is more or less BForce zoomed in, I'd say that's a distinct possibility.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

NC3 may complicate the answer about squadron size normally being 4.

[Korzon77]

I have to disagree with this sentiment.  While on the tabletop it is ideal for a PWS to be a thoroughbred assault ship and should operate in squadrons in a big battle (which includes anything involving a warship), practically there are strong arguments for a multirole PWS.  I think a better parallel is to think of PWS operating similarly to light cruisers in the early 1900s.  Despite fighting major engagements are a flotilla, they are also immensely useful on their own.

For instance, the 'assault carrier' type, such as Titans and the modern Vengeance-DC, is very convinient as a one-ship task force.  The fighters cover the PWS while the PWS provides ewar support and long range egg cracking firepower.  Yes, you can gain the same thing by having a thoroughbred assault ship and dedicated carrier, but then you doubled up on your dropships.

yes but you can keep the carrier far away-- the thing is that there is room for a general puprose "armored cruiser" style pws-- but not fighting warships. Warship fighters are heavily optimized suicide units that work because you have 20 shipyards that can churn out PWSs while there are only 2 shipyards that can churn out warships.  You lose 20 PWs for warshp, you're still ahead even if it's "costing" you more money because you can't increase warship production by throwing money at it.

It's very much the same justification used in WWII for producing Shermans-- the US knew that they were in many respects less capable than the best German tanks but we could ship more of them and outproduce the Germans. 

The thign is the that Canon btech has warship production being very, very difficult in the same way that mech production is. Granted by reading the cost of warships, every successor state should have it's very own fleet of McKennas, but that's not the case. However, most states do have sufficient room to produce a large number of PWSs and more importantly replace them-- and they won't be fighting flotillas of warhips, they'll mostly be fighting individual warships.  You lose a lot, but the enemy ship is either destroyed or damaged-- and a warship can't be repaired easily.


There's another advantage to PWS groups over warships-- strategic.  A warship can move, at m ost, 60 LY, with roughly a weeks recharge time in between jumps. In most cases, a warshp with a LF battery isn't going to double jump-- it's going to keep the charge as a method to withdraw quickly.

A PWS group can move as far as you have charged jumpships.  Need a PWS group to go 180 LY? That's *impossible* for a warship.  You can do it if you have 6 jumpships for your dropships. This provides a vast strategic advantage over the enemy warships, especially remembering how limited in number they are.

[Weirdo]

NC3 may complicate the answer about squadron size normally being 4.

I fail to see how. Even if every DCMS AND RotS fleet uses groups of six DropShips(highly unlikely), statistics will still put the IS norm at base 4.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I fail to see how. Even if every DCMS AND RotS fleet uses groups of six DropShips(highly unlikely), statistics will still put the IS norm at base 4.

Even if the answer is 4 normally, and sometimes 6 in NC3-capable squadrons.. then that complicated the answer from a simple "usually 4", didn't it?

We don't know much about the RAF dropship navy's deployment, but we have been told some information about what dropships the DCA tries to fly in combination.  IIRC we haven't seen a NC3 equipped version of an Okinawa or a Vengeance yet, and we don't know the extent of the deployment of the NC3 Achilles. 

So on the other hand, a DCA PWS squadron probably would only have 2-3 NC3 capable ships.. the 'wasted' capability of linking up to 6 could be instead utilized by linking networks in separate PWS squadrons together.  I'd like to think this rationale suggests regular use of flotillas of PWS squadrons, but I'm unsure that fits the aesthetic we're supposed to have of 3145.

[Alexander Knight]

Even if the answer is 4 normally, and sometimes 6 in NC3-capable squadrons.. then that complicated the answer from a simple "usually 4", didn't it?

No, the "usually" part means "not always".  If 60% of the Inner Sphere's dropship squadrons are 4-ship groups, then that's "usually".

[Stormlion1]

I wonder how the PWS crews will feel about being 'expendable' when sent against actual warships?

[Korzon77]

Ask for very good lifepods?  If you're engaging warships you're probably facing a very serious war situation-- in btech canon, nobody risks a warship unless it's for an extremely important option.

More generally, aerospace combat is seen as much more "high risk" than ground engagements, from the aerospace fighters all the way up.

So I'd say that if you're talking "fronteir skirmish #275" you're crew is probably not seriously pushing things and pulling back when the armor gets hurt, and the enemy warship is likely not focusing on murderkilling damaged PWSs that are withdrawing. If you're engaging a Clan McKenna over your capital?  Ships fire until they can't and then emulate gigantic suicide KE projectiles.

[Nebfer]

Basically Pocket Warships are like WW2 era Destroyers & Patrol torpedo boats, you may have weapons that can hurt capital ships (I.e. torpedoes) but you do not have the durability and armor to handle the return fire very well. 

[solmanian]

If you don't have troops on the ground, then delivering ortillery is normally pointless*. 

The Reunification wars called. They said you can bomb things from orbit without spotters just fine. Especially if you don't care what you hit.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

The Reunification wars called. They said you can bomb things from orbit without spotters just fine. Especially if you don't care what you hit.

The Reunification Wars have the wrong number.  This thread is about PWSs, so the only two eras who are allowed to call in are the Jihad and the post-jihad Dark Age.

Yes, in the Jihad, indiscriminite ortillery was a thing.  It is not, however, still a thing in the Dark Age (at least as of yet.)  Hence my qualifying statement "unspotted ortillery is NORMALLY pointless". 

We're not glassing planets, here.  And even if we were, sub-capial weapons aren't really your go-to on that.

[Korzon77]

If you want to glass a world, a PWS is positively overkill-- you need a mule, lots of bombs that are enclosed in ballistic re-entry units and a guy to kick them out of the ship when you're in the right orbit.

[Khymerion]

If you want to glass a world, a PWS is positively overkill-- you need a mule, lots of bombs that are enclosed in ballistic re-entry units and a guy to kick them out of the ship when you're in the right orbit.

Do we actually have rules for that?   There is part of me that wonders where this came from, can't seem to find this entry within the ruleset.   Same thing with orion drive driven kinetic bombardment devices (AKA:  Asteroids).

[Korzon77]

Do we actually have rules for that?   There is part of me that wonders where this came from, can't seem to find this entry within the ruleset.   Same thing with orion drive driven kinetic bombardment devices (AKA:  Asteroids).

It was mentinoed in one of teh Jihad books as a method the Regulans were using.  My assumption is that there are no hard and fast rules for it-- it would be impractical if anyone was opposing you, and if htey aren't, just state you're doing it, pay for the bombs and draw a big red X on the planet.

[Khymerion]

It was mentinoed in one of teh Jihad books as a method the Regulans were using.  My assumption is that there are no hard and fast rules for it-- it would be impractical if anyone was opposing you, and if htey aren't, just state you're doing it, pay for the bombs and draw a big red X on the planet.

Ah, wouldn't mind a price tag then for book keeping purposes then.   Hand-waving with a squigley line next to it doesn't look good in the account books when it comes time for audits and end of year budget projections.

[sillybrit]

If you want to glass a world, a PWS is positively overkill

Try underkill. They simply don't have the individual firepower to glass a planet, even with nuke-tipped capital and sub-capital missiles, unless you field stupid numbers. The same with WarShips really.

Unless you use their cargo bays for your next suggestion...

you need a mule, lots of bombs that are enclosed in ballistic re-entry units and a guy to kick them out of the ship when you're in the right orbit.

That's the way to do it: Regulan-style. We lack game rules simply because for gameplay purposes, glassing planets falls into the realm of realistic high speed engagements.

[Stormlion1]

I wonder how many nukes each Successor State actually had? Everyone always talks about glassing planets and using them heavily but there were a very tightly controlled weapon system and the number of places that could produce them probably had to be very low. Especially after the Succession Wars where the places were they were produced were destroyed or not making as many. I just don't see PWS's having a large number of nukes deployed onboard or even having any aboard unless loaded prior for a special mission. Regulas not withstanding of course, those guys got nuke happy.

[RebelRunner]

Regulans not withstanding of course, those guys got nuke happy.

Yeah...my RFAF task forces have always included at least half a dozen nukes per PWS/assault dropper. Just to be sure. I've never needed to use them, though  >:( >:(

[Stormlion1]

Yeah...my RFAF task forces have always included at least half a dozen nukes per PWS/assault dropper. Just to be sure. I've never needed to use them, though  >:( >:(

When you redesign a mech to fire nukes, you get the label Nuke Happy.  ;)

[solmanian]

Even the most primitive planet in BT should be able to produce nukes, but they won't devote a lot of resources to produce something they'll probably never use. The nuclear stockpile of a successor state probably dwarves modern day US, SU, etc. combined; and that without even trying.

[idea weenie]

Ah, wouldn't mind a price tag then for book keeping purposes then.   Hand-waving with a squigley line next to it doesn't look good in the account books when it comes time for audits and end of year budget projections.

One of the Jihad books had rules for costing the nukes, based on availability, successor state manufacturing them, rating of the unit buying them, etc.  Add in a number to reflect the industrial nuke manufacturing and use that to adjust the cost.

Besides, padding a few hundred thousand per nuke lets you have a nice retirement fund/MWR party budget.

[Maelwys]

I wonder how many nukes each Successor State actually had? Everyone always talks about glassing planets and using them heavily but there were a very tightly controlled weapon system and the number of places that could produce them probably had to be very low. Especially after the Succession Wars where the places were they were produced were destroyed or not making as many. I just don't see PWS's having a large number of nukes deployed onboard or even having any aboard unless loaded prior for a special mission. Regulas not withstanding of course, those guys got nuke happy.

Considering the Regulans had enough nukes to depopulate several planets, and they're just a part of the FWL, I'd expect an entire House to have enough nukes to depopulate dozens, if not more, planets. Are they going to deploy them in general to their forces? Probably not.

[Korzon77]

Also don't forget that the Terren Alliance had issues with terrorists using nuclear hand grenades-- which means that some types of nukes are probably fairly easy to make.

[Stormlion1]

Nuclear Hand Grenades sounds like the best idea ever! Right up there with the suicide vest, anti-tank dogs, and the Chauchat Machine gun. Won't the fallout or the explosion kill the guy throwing it?

[Alan Grant]

As a general rule, no...I don't throw pocket warships at warships. Better to try and swarm them with aerospace fighters. A lot of warship classes have minimal anti-ASF defenses.

A big swarm of 100 ton ASFs, especially if they are packing additional weapons like Arrow IV missiles under the wings, can be a very real threat to a warship. And I'd rather lose a wing of ASFs than wreck my pocket warship fleet.

But I'm speaking in broad generalities here. As Weirdo indicated in his post, the context matters.

[Korzon77]

Yeah-- the thing is that ideally you'll never have just "one" unit.  You throw lots of ASF against my warship, I send out my fighters and pocket warships to create a screen. Then you bring up your own warship to use NPPCs to kill my screen, etc, etc.

[Weirdo]

Which is why everything has to be spelled out up front, or the discussion is useless.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Something in general that CAN be definitively said about Pocket Warships vis a vis proper WarShips is that the PWSs are more employable. 

PWSs are in production, and WarShips are not.  The loss of a PWS, or even a few, would be a blow.. but a recoverable blow.  If you lose X PWSs, you can always build Y more.  And the ultimate effect of losing those initial X PWSs is only that X is not around to be added to Y.

Losing a WarShip otoh.. those are irreplaceable.  And irreplaceable things don't tend to see use.  And things not seeing use are not very useful afterall.  (WWI naval standoff between Britain and Germany is a great example of how powerful fleets can ironically end up being useless out of reluctance to risk their loss by committing them to battle)

[Weirdo]

Era is another thing that must be clarified, as that only holds true in most recent eras.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Era is another thing that must be clarified, as that only holds true in most recent eras.

Era is pretty tightly defined as is if PWSs are involved in the discussion.

[Weirdo]

Only if you never search for 'Mule' in the MUL.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Only if you never search for 'Mule' in the MUL.

Q-Ships != PWSs.

If you want to argue that they are one in the same, maybe you should make another thread to do so.  This one however is about PWSs and WarShips ;)

[Weirdo]

PWS = DropShip with capital weapons. No more, no less. If you're going to shift the goal posts around, please do me a favor and tell me first.

That said, my point stands: You cannot make asumptions of the other player's behavior just because he has one given type of unit and you have another given type.

[Wrangler]

Okay. I'll ask a question in realistic terms. 

In the Early Republic Era, where WarShips are almost never deployed.  How would be the best way to use a PWS in a task force of battalion worth troops (Mechs, Vehicles, infantry) for a raid against a regional industrial complex.  Such as Liao attacking Victoria way after the Victoria War.

[Weirdo]

Okay. I'll ask a question in realistic terms. 

In the Early Republic Era, where WarShips are almost never deployed.  How would be the best way to use a PWS in a task force of battalion worth troops (Mechs, Vehicles, infantry) for a raid against a regional industrial complex.  Such as Liao attacking Victoria way after the Victoria War.

That's as good one. A battalion is a bit small for sending a full complement of PWSes, so a full Vengeance/Lung Wang group might be a bit much(unless the point is to land this battalion on a world known for heavy space defenses). I'll assume just a pair of Lung Wangs. I would run them with my fighter screen, well ahead of the transports. Their primary targets would be to quickly kill off any non-PWS DropShips in the defending fleet, to give their fighter wing an easier job of it. Lung Wangs don't really have the punch or armor to tangle with most other PWS classes(maybe one of those refitted transport classes like the Excalibur, or Overlord-A3 at the most, but a scratch-built PWS like an Arondight will eat them alive), so if one of those shows up, I'd try to hang back and let the fighters take it out, or maybe go after it but doing so on full evasive, so he'd be tempted to waste his shots on poor to-hits against me.

Sadly, the Lung Wang is very clearly a pure space-combat vessel, so once the transports get down, its job is more or less over. Your big guns cannot reach the ground, and as a spheroid where the real firepower is in the nose or aft, it's pretty bad at atmospheric combat. You could land and defend the LZ from airborne threats(quite well, too), but you might be better off staying in orbit and just providing overwatch. This gives you better reaction time if/when more enemy space assets show up, a good recon/command platform that cannot easily be hit from the ground, and the ability to interdict any attempted suborbital or high altitude troop movements.

[solmanian]

I don't even think PWSs are attached to ground forces. As far as ground support they might be overkill, and not very effective since they Ortillery skills are wanting. You would see them in fleet formation, maybe attached as escort for a raiding force. Overall they're at their best fighting large space crafts from warship to dropships; against ASFs they'll be overkill, but might be deployed to take out their carrier, but assault dropships are just more suited for close air support.
Are they still making assault dropships, or have theybeen replaced by the more potent PWSs? I know there are plenty of them around, but I'm betting many shipyards are being upgraded for PWSs...

[Weirdo]

Assault ships are still being made, yes. (I'm assuming you're talking about the ones that aren't PWSes, since by definition, all PWSes are Assault DropShips.) There's the Nagasawa class, the Dragau II, the newer Achilles hulls, and I'm certain that many older models are still in contruction somewhere.