Fixing the fleets, or why having real fleets would not hurt the game

[Daryk]

Newton is absolutely good enough for most units, but once you get into Strategic Thrust, Einstein is a must.

[monbvol]

*nod*

Even tactical thrust for Warships with the numbers available mean something is going on that is above my mathematical/physics knowledge for if all one went by was Newton's Third Law Warship exhaust is breaking the speed of light at even tactical levels by the numbers we have available.

I shudder to think what arcane/eldritch horrors are at work to make a Leviathan able to get up to 300 m/s on 400 kg of fuel.

[The_Caveman]

Fighters actually aren't all that bad. Exhaust from the largest fighters and small craft (in tactical mode) is safely under 1% of lightspeed. 20-ton fighters are downright realistic, albeit for very advanced fusion rockets.

It's larger craft and anything using strategic thrust that cause real physics headaches.

[monbvol]

While this is interesting it is starting to get a bit far afield.

I do tend to agree with Cannonshop in something he said.  Sending in small "commando" teams to disrupt enemy defenses in preparation for a major invasion does make a lot of sense and does actually provide a way for the game as we know it to persist in a Warship rich setting with relatively few changes as long as no one looks at certain things too closely and/or everyone abides by certain civilized agreements.

[The_Caveman]

While this is interesting it is starting to get a bit far afield.

I do tend to agree with Cannonshop in something he said.  Sending in small "commando" teams to disrupt enemy defenses in preparation for a major invasion does make a lot of sense and does actually provide a way for the game as we know it to persist in a Warship rich setting with relatively few changes as long as no one looks at certain things too closely and/or everyone abides by certain civilized agreements.

This is how it's done in my own science fantasy setting. Mecha are special-purpose commando raiders and planetary defenses make starships getting anywhere near a hostile planet a near-suicidal proposition. If you want to invade a planet, special forces have to knock out the surface guns and missile batteries, which may literally be inside mountains.

In a capital weaponry-rich setting, you're likely to see a switch to shuttles as the means of establishing a beachhead rather than DropShips.

[Daryk]

Well, the shuttles are the way to insert the special forces taking down the surface to orbit weaponry.  You'll still want larger ships for the actual "beach" head.

[The_Caveman]

Well, the shuttles are the way to insert the special forces taking down the surface to orbit weaponry.  You'll still want larger ships for the actual "beach" head.

You have to take the beaches at Normandy before you can liberate France. DropShips bringing in armies would be analogous to freighters and troopships landing at major ports after D-Day. You don't use them to breach the Atlantic Wall. That's what the landing craft and paratroopers are for (in this case, shuttles and orbitally inserted 'Mechs/BA).

[Cannonshop]

While this is interesting it is starting to get a bit far afield.

I do tend to agree with Cannonshop in something he said.  Sending in small "commando" teams to disrupt enemy defenses in preparation for a major invasion does make a lot of sense and does actually provide a way for the game as we know it to persist in a Warship rich setting with relatively few changes as long as no one looks at certain things too closely and/or everyone abides by certain civilized agreements.

to be honest, my idea mainly came about as a workaround to explain the "company of 'mechs taking the planet" thing that was common in the source materials back in the day, but it all fits together with making 'mechs make sense-a 'mech squad (Company) is a lot of enriched materials and specialist training with a very limited talent pool, the game itself is optimized for very small unit engagements.

but...then you get TRO 2750, and they slide in warships that can level continents from space.

If "Just about everyone" has surface-to-orbit defenses (or there's a risk of that) then 'mechs in the Star League era make a lot more sense-they were necessary to get sufficient all-terrain firepower moved in to suppress those defenses, esp. 'mechs like the Hussar, which sports exactly ONE weapon (a large laser) on a chassis that is ridiculously fast-but under-protected.  This isn't a unit for suppressing bandits or insurgents and it's not really useful in large mass engagements.

but it's darned useful for knocking out big antenna arrays or exposed missile sites before they can be used on the ship hauling the invasion forces.  Even knocking a hole big enough in the defense to land mass numbers of troops, and at the weight, it can be deployed using smaller, stealthier dropships than something larger.

Likewise, LAM forces actually start making strategic sense-they can insert without a dropship, and without exposing your expensive transportation to that surface to orbit fire, get in, start cutting commo lines and (again) knocking out 'sensor dishes' and such, with high enough mobility to hit several fairly quickly while being a pain to intercept.

of course, once the major defenses have been 1st and 2nd succession-warred, they're still going to be useful for attacking airfields and grounded enemy fighters before a response can be summoned (hence the DC's view that the LAM factory is valuable.)

this also explains units like the Panther...

[monbvol]

*nod*

The fiction does seem to support the idea of some mechwarriors being special forces and the RPGs have also supported that idea for at least two editions if not more.

[The_Caveman]

The need to dodge STO batteries seems like a pretty good raison d'etre for orbital drop pods. A DropShip that comes screaming in from a pirate point on a highly elliptical orbit and chucks some drop pods out before slingshotting back out of range is going to have better odds of survival against STO defenses than one that tries for a surface landing. The pods can use their own retrorockets to time the exact course of reentry, and being well under 200 tons are going to be difficult to track, let alone shoot down.

If you don't have a proliferation of STO batteries it's harder to explain orbital drops. A pod is more vulnerable to enemy fighters than the DropShip that's carrying it and with no self-extract capability it just makes more sense for a well-armed DropShip to shoot its way into an LZ. Even if that's not possible, it's safer (for the 'Mechs) to drop the 'Mechs from within the atmosphere while still out of range of non-capital AA guns. Orbital drops incur the risk of pod failure and make it way harder to get all your forces on target, since even small divergences from the intended trajectory can mean huge final position changes.

[BloodRose]

Wow I did not think this would go so far!
There has been a lot of interesting discussion up to now, and some good points have been raised. One thing for sure is that it appears full warship fleets can exist in the BT universe without breaking any of the focus on the Battlemechs.
Keep up the interesting debate guys.

[monbvol]

Well I'd say it is more accurate to say that the mech could continue to serve a useful purpose but realistically, no it would not be the focus anymore in a Warship rich setting.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Well I'd say it is more accurate to say that the mech could continue to serve a useful purpose but realistically, no it would not be the focus anymore in a Warship rich setting.

Yeah that's why I said what I stated in this thread. If you are a BIG FAN of warships, and you love the WarShips of Battletech, you're better off having a separate AU setting for them. BattleTech setting is mainly to showcase the 'Mech.

[monbvol]

*nod*

As much as the mech and Warships are not mutually exclusive I do tend to agree there are some pretty subtle but significant fundamental changes that would happen if Warships were brought up to even remotely reasonable numbers.

[dgorsman]

Is there a potential in-universe reason, aside from SDS weapons, for Warships to be kept away from orbit?  Seems that could solve a lot of the major balancing issues.

[monbvol]

Not really.

Just keeping Warships out of orbit wouldn't stop some of the less expensive ways to wreck a planet's ability to resist either because honestly a lot of things need to fundamentally change and not just Warships.

[Cannonshop]

Is there a potential in-universe reason, aside from SDS weapons, for Warships to be kept away from orbit?  Seems that could solve a lot of the major balancing issues.

well... one possible balancer would be hindrance of movement.  If every round close to a gravity well, your Warship has to make a PSR or spend fuel not to fall in, for example-aka the only 'safe' orbit for a ship of a given size, (Warship sized) is out of capital weapons range of the surface, that could do it.

I mean, as a game mechanical concept.  alternately gravitation may have other effects that could make those 'space supremacy' superstructures known as warships less attractive.  They're built around a structure that is sensitive to gravitation effects (Jump drives need near-neutral gravity to function, aka almst perfectly flat spacetime).

Maybe if you take your expensive jump-capable warship too close, you risk breaking your core and being stranded, or needing to make repairs and realignments to your nav arrays every time you reach/break orbit because the very expensive control systems for your jump core have to be so sensitive to tidal forces (to find that 'sweet spot' that lets you jump to the RIGHT star system) that it's a major undertaking to approach or leave a planet.  (Which also explains the proliferation of 'spine and collar' jumpships and reliance on droppers over big-drive primitives).

basically this turns Warships into "Commitment barges"-once it's approached a world, X hours are needed per ton of ship to realign the jump-drive controller before you can safely risk a jump. If you don't want to be there for the next 30 days, you hang back at the arrival point, or at least, far enough from a major gravity well that it doesn't futz your calculations too much when  you finally leave the system.

This would still allow Warships, and all the trimmings, but it would also make them only attractive under extreme strategic necessity-unsuitable as support for raiders, but absolutely suitable for supporting a dedicated planetary conquest where you intend to STAY in the system for a piece.

[RifleMech]

Well I'd say it is more accurate to say that the mech could continue to serve a useful purpose but realistically, no it would not be the focus anymore in a Warship rich setting.

While I agree that there would be subtle changes I don't think having more Warships would reduce the focus on mechs. There shouldn't be so many warships that every planet has a fleet. Just key worlds, roving patrols and escorts. Warships also should have their focus in space with ground attack to protect landing zones and eliminate capital surface weapons. Then its mechs and other ground units to take the objectives. After all, even with all the ortillery used during the Reunification War and others the planets weren't taken without putting troops on the ground.



That leaves plenty of focus on mechs to take the world.

[The_Caveman]

well... one possible balancer would be hindrance of movement.  If every round close to a gravity well, your Warship has to make a PSR or spend fuel not to fall in, for example-aka the only 'safe' orbit for a ship of a given size, (Warship sized) is out of capital weapons range of the surface, that could do it.

I mean, as a game mechanical concept.  alternately gravitation may have other effects that could make those 'space supremacy' superstructures known as warships less attractive.  They're built around a structure that is sensitive to gravitation effects (Jump drives need near-neutral gravity to function, aka almst perfectly flat spacetime).

Maybe if you take your expensive jump-capable warship too close, you risk breaking your core and being stranded, or needing to make repairs and realignments to your nav arrays every time you reach/break orbit because the very expensive control systems for your jump core have to be so sensitive to tidal forces (to find that 'sweet spot' that lets you jump to the RIGHT star system) that it's a major undertaking to approach or leave a planet.  (Which also explains the proliferation of 'spine and collar' jumpships and reliance on droppers over big-drive primitives).

basically this turns Warships into "Commitment barges"-once it's approached a world, X hours are needed per ton of ship to realign the jump-drive controller before you can safely risk a jump. If you don't want to be there for the next 30 days, you hang back at the arrival point, or at least, far enough from a major gravity well that it doesn't futz your calculations too much when  you finally leave the system.

This would still allow Warships, and all the trimmings, but it would also make them only attractive under extreme strategic necessity-unsuitable as support for raiders, but absolutely suitable for supporting a dedicated planetary conquest where you intend to STAY in the system for a piece.

The idea of ships having to "calibrate" their KF cores for significant time periods after exposure to deep gravity wells could work and wouldn't break the existing fiction too much. I'd be in favor of it. It keeps WS at lunar distances or so unless they were really and truly committed to the ground fight. Of course a ship like the Ancestral Home has nothing to lose...

I don't like the idea of PSRs to avoid being "sucked in" by a planet because it makes some animals more equal than others--aside from being a completely bass-ackward approach to how gravity works. A 100,000 ton DropShip has nothing to worry about but a 100,000 ton WarShip does.

[RifleMech]

I'm not sure PSRs for being in orbit are necessary but I suppose it could have something to do with how the KF Drive reacts with gravity. Since dropships don't have a KF drive they don't need to worry.

[Cannonshop]

The idea of ships having to "calibrate" their KF cores for significant time periods after exposure to deep gravity wells could work and wouldn't break the existing fiction too much. I'd be in favor of it. It keeps WS at lunar distances or so unless they were really and truly committed to the ground fight. Of course a ship like the Ancestral Home has nothing to lose...

I don't like the idea of PSRs to avoid being "sucked in" by a planet because it makes some animals more equal than others--aside from being a completely bass-ackward approach to how gravity works. A 100,000 ton DropShip has nothing to worry about but a 100,000 ton WarShip does.

I was actually thinking it through while I was writing it, I agree that 'Gravity sucks you down' doesn't work thematically, but then it occurred to me that "Gravity ****** up your jumpdrive" actually fits with the setting, so that kind of rolled out, and seems to work alright, in that it lets you have both a warship "enriched" setting, while keeping the focus on the ground game.

combining it with surface-to-orbit battery threats for more important worlds for eras before the 2nd succession war and maybe AFTER the Republic, with a caveat that a lot of doctrine didn't change in that sense in the intervening years due to loss of information, perhaps?

I'm not sure PSRs for being in orbit are necessary but I suppose it could have something to do with how the KF Drive reacts with gravity. Since dropships don't have a KF drive they don't need to worry.

[Kovax]

What might cure the problem would be:
1 - an armor-piercing ground-based weapon (Naval-class rail gun) that can potentially chip or damage a Germanium core on a critical hit.  That would render the warship incapable of jumping.  A regular warship can go on the offensive, but the attackers risk having their warship stranded in-system until the KF core is extensively altered or rebuilt to accommodate the damage.  A planetary defense ship without jump capability could be extremely powerful, but would never be able to leave the system.

2 - more frequent use of nuclear weapons against warships.  You can build the thing as big as you like, but one ASF with a nuke could slip past the defenses and take it out.  That's a whole lot of eggs to risk in one overpriced basket.  Significantly smaller ships would become the norm, not the bloated monstrosities pictured in the 2750 TRO, or in Dropships and Jumpships.

Basically, a large warship becomes a priority target for nuclear weapons by any attacker, whereas those same nuclear weapons would not be deemed acceptable by any reputable power for use against the planet itself.

Naval class weapons should be able to do large amounts of artillery damage to multiple BT hexes, but MOST of their energy should be focused on a single hex.  Obliterating any 'Mech in the target hex, if it hits, I can agree with, but give it a lot less splash damage, unless it's using nuclear warheads.

The concept of using 'Mechs as an advanced force to secure a landing zone and eliminate ground-based weapons capable of easily damaging or destroying dropships or damaging those literally priceless warships, is sound, but there's not enough fluff to point to that as their primary objective.  They're fluffed as the main combat elements of the House military, rather than the special forces that they would most likely be.  Face it, vehicles are dirt cheap in comparison, and if the old slogan "Life is cheap, Battlemechs are expensive" holds true, then a force consisting primarily of vehicles, with a few Battlemechs as the special forces to tip the scales at the most critical points, should be the norm.

The 'Mechs would still be critical to success in any invasion, and would still be valuable raiders due to their flexibility, but you wouldn't see armies of Battlemechs facing each other.  It would be armies of tanks, artillery, and infantry, with a few 'Mechs making surgical strikes, raiding behind enemy lines, and spearheading critical assaults where it counted most.

[The_Caveman]

I was actually thinking it through while I was writing it, I agree that 'Gravity sucks you down' doesn't work thematically, but then it occurred to me that "Gravity ****** up your jumpdrive" actually fits with the setting, so that kind of rolled out, and seems to work alright, in that it lets you have both a warship "enriched" setting, while keeping the focus on the ground game.

combining it with surface-to-orbit battery threats for more important worlds for eras before the 2nd succession war and maybe AFTER the Republic, with a caveat that a lot of doctrine didn't change in that sense in the intervening years due to loss of information, perhaps?

Maybe a penalty on all control rolls for KF drive-equipped ships operating in a planetary gravity well? The idea being that the gravitational fields produce some kind of unpredictable torque or force on the core that makes the ship harder to pilot.

[monbvol]

Would still leave at least one fundamental Warship problem.

A defending Warship, or a force of them if need be, still presents the problem of they can make landing forces very likely to suffer far too many losses.

Which is the side of the coin I think tends to get forgotten about in these sorts of conversations.

[dgorsman]

Actually taken into consideration with my question.  A small increase of distance from the planet and it geometrically increases the amount of area that needs to be covered.  That makes it easier to get troop ships in, although more difficult to keep sending them in on the same vector.

[The_Caveman]

Pity changing the speed of WarShips would completely invalidate the construction rules. There's really no reason for them to be as fast as DropShips and it would solve some problems if it were possible to outrun them.

[monbvol]

Actually taken into consideration with my question.  A small increase of distance from the planet and it geometrically increases the amount of area that needs to be covered.  That makes it easier to get troop ships in, although more difficult to keep sending them in on the same vector.

There's still a pretty significant chance defending Warships could cripple an invasion before it gets close to the target planet in such a situation.

Pity changing the speed of WarShips would completely invalidate the construction rules. There's really no reason for them to be as fast as DropShips and it would solve some problems if it were possible to outrun them.

There are a number of Warships that are only 2/3 already and I can only think of a couple that are 4/6.  Most transport Dropships are 4/6.

But Warships trying to intercept Dropships have a pretty big advantage.  At least when it comes to defending a planet.  At some point the Dropships have to turn around and start slowing down.  The Warship(s) don't have the same problem, at least not to the same extent.  And they have the trick of potentially being able to jump in system too if pirate points prove usefully located to their purpose.

Also really there'd be only so much you could slow them down before they become compromised as Warships in fulfilling Warship duties.

[Alexander Knight]

All this Warship chatter does not alter the fact that Dropships can mount Capital Missile launchers and some of the SubCapital guns are also capable of orbital bombardment.

[Cannonshop]

There's still a pretty significant chance defending Warships could cripple an invasion before it gets close to the target planet in such a situation.

There are a number of Warships that are only 2/3 already and I can only think of a couple that are 4/6.  Most transport Dropships are 4/6.

But Warships trying to intercept Dropships have a pretty big advantage.  At least when it comes to defending a planet.  At some point the Dropships have to turn around and start slowing down.  The Warship(s) don't have the same problem, at least not to the same extent.  And they have the trick of potentially being able to jump in system too if pirate points prove usefully located to their purpose.

Also really there'd be only so much you could slow them down before they become compromised as Warships in fulfilling Warship duties.

there's a lot of 'ifs' there. remember, Warships are horrifically expensive to build, and for an equivalent value, you can buy quite a lot more dropships plus jumpers to haul them, and a properly plotted assault plan can force the defending warship into bad strategic choices.

well, bad for him.  It's the "How many angles can you cover?" problem.

The second thing that comes immediately to mind, is "What if we take BT History from 2750 on to 3049" as our basis, but plug in the concepts I outlined? does the concept fit the existng lore?

because that suggests solutions and a direction post-3050.

Consider it thus;

your 'useful defensive range' for a warship has to maintain the jump drive's ability to jump.  This means your defending warships have to either hang out near stable/predictable jump point coordinates, or spend weeks recalibrating their hardware after a close pass to a significant gravity well-essentially making them space-stations stuck in a given system.

when defending, to get maximum coverage of a defended body, you need to be relatively close to it-which a warship pays a significant penalty for-or you have to be willing to spend a lot of time overthrusting to try and intercept approaching forces.

alternately, you have to station one of these hyperexpensive ships at EACH stable or recurring point-meaning you need a massive fleet in every defended system "Just in case".

which, most of the time, won't be doing anything except sucking down that fleet maintenance budget.

doing jack shit.

and your coverage is going to suck rocks, even if you have the budget to do it, because all it takes are one or two 'leakers and your fleet's spread out piecemeal and unable to apply that nice, concentrated defensive firepower.

For close in work, your budget makes happier sounds if you use dropships and stations with big fighter screens-because those do NOT experience 'technical difficulties' with their most expensive vital component for being too close to mister Gravity Well.

IOW they're cheaper on the defense.

Warships, then, aren't defensive units. They're offense units, they exist to draw that defense out of position or lay waste to that stationary, static defense array, see?

but they're offense units that risk their single most expensive and difficult to manufacture component, every time they get too close to a target planet-so they're really only useful when going after the most valuable planets in a campaign.  See where I'm going with this?

SO...what's goin'a getta nuke in the 1st Succession War (and second) first?  Because it's a big, expensive asset that's really only good for playing offense?

so that covers the warship poverty of the 3rd and 4th succession wars-budgets and industrial bases are a mess, nobody can finance building a new warship, without compromising the defensive assets that are better bang-for-the-buck on defense than a Warship.

Okay, bear with me now..

so we get to post-4th succession war, and some economic and technical recovery.  Nobody was competent with the things anymore because it's been so long, hence the fetish for ramming a few hundered billion C-bills of nigh-irreplaceable playing warship chicken.  (Steiner-Davion style) instead of ramming the enemy with smaller things like missiles and coherent energy-aka using capital weapons intelligently instead of holding still like an idiot while another idiot rams you in the style of Greco-Persian warfare.

like a noob.

because nobody really knows what the fleep they're doing.

which they did not.

okay, and then there's Case White, which demonstrates that the Terrans weren't much better than anyone else at it.  possibly lead in the water system or something, anyway, nobody builds 'em for a while after because ta-daaa!!! everybody's broke again.

so let's ride that advancing timeline.  Everyone is NOT broke again, and maybe some of the States have hired people who aren't suffering from inbreeding to do their naval planning, they've got money, they build ships.

so now they actually start figuring out a working doctrine.

Warships are "Offensive players", for high value targets that are heavily defended.

Pockets, are defense players.  They're actually pretty optimal for the defense role or as escorts/adjuncts to warships on offense.  From this, we can get a general 'feel' for a warship rich setting, and it looks like World War 2. 

Battleships had to hang back from most of those islands and other coastal areas, they had to be 'put at risk' to get close when firing inland on medium and larger islands, because scraping the reef rips your hull up.  In this situation, 'scraping the reef' is synonymous with "getting close to the planet" and "rips your bottom up" is synonymous with ****** up your jumpdrive, costing weeks to repair."

puts the droppers and the carrier fighters on the "close support during the landings" phase of anything that isn't a major strategic target.  Your warships are there to cover their backsides from the enemy force that is sure to show up during your invasion, or to clear out the naval defenses ahead of your invading army, then cover their backside from enemy reinforcement.

we can have LOTS of warships available for this, without losing the emphasis on the contesting of the only valuable thing in most campaigns-the planets, but they're not going to be wasted on petty  raiding or peacekeeping ops.

see how that works?  Unless you're MAJOR OBJECTIVE is to occupy a planet, the warships stay at home or do training drills, or are in movement to the planet you're actually intending to conquer and occupy.

because once it's gotten close, it's not leaving until it's had several weeks of downtime to recalibrate the jump-controller.

[monbvol]

All this Warship chatter does not alter the fact that Dropships can mount Capital Missile launchers and some of the SubCapital guns are also capable of orbital bombardment.

And have been able to do so since at least the Battlespace rule set.  Not sure about any older rule sets. So it's not like it is a recent rule change but it does seem to be easily forgotten in these discussions.

there's a lot of 'ifs' there. remember, Warships are horrifically expensive to build, and for an equivalent value, you can buy quite a lot more dropships plus jumpers to haul them, and a properly plotted assault plan can force the defending warship into bad strategic choices.

well, bad for him.  It's the "How many angles can you cover?" problem.

The second thing that comes immediately to mind, is "What if we take BT History from 2750 on to 3049" as our basis, but plug in the concepts I outlined? does the concept fit the existng lore?

because that suggests solutions and a direction post-3050.

Consider it thus;

your 'useful defensive range' for a warship has to maintain the jump drive's ability to jump.  This means your defending warships have to either hang out near stable/predictable jump point coordinates, or spend weeks recalibrating their hardware after a close pass to a significant gravity well-essentially making them space-stations stuck in a given system.

when defending, to get maximum coverage of a defended body, you need to be relatively close to it-which a warship pays a significant penalty for-or you have to be willing to spend a lot of time overthrusting to try and intercept approaching forces.

alternately, you have to station one of these hyperexpensive ships at EACH stable or recurring point-meaning you need a massive fleet in every defended system "Just in case".

which, most of the time, won't be doing anything except sucking down that fleet maintenance budget.

doing jack shit.

and your coverage is going to suck rocks, even if you have the budget to do it, because all it takes are one or two 'leakers and your fleet's spread out piecemeal and unable to apply that nice, concentrated defensive firepower.

For close in work, your budget makes happier sounds if you use dropships and stations with big fighter screens-because those do NOT experience 'technical difficulties' with their most expensive vital component for being too close to mister Gravity Well.

IOW they're cheaper on the defense.

Warships, then, aren't defensive units. They're offense units, they exist to draw that defense out of position or lay waste to that stationary, static defense array, see?

but they're offense units that risk their single most expensive and difficult to manufacture component, every time they get too close to a target planet-so they're really only useful when going after the most valuable planets in a campaign.  See where I'm going with this?

SO...what's goin'a getta nuke in the 1st Succession War (and second) first?  Because it's a big, expensive asset that's really only good for playing offense?

so that covers the warship poverty of the 3rd and 4th succession wars-budgets and industrial bases are a mess, nobody can finance building a new warship, without compromising the defensive assets that are better bang-for-the-buck on defense than a Warship.

Okay, bear with me now..

so we get to post-4th succession war, and some economic and technical recovery.  Nobody was competent with the things anymore because it's been so long, hence the fetish for ramming a few hundered billion C-bills of nigh-irreplaceable playing warship chicken.  (Steiner-Davion style) instead of ramming the enemy with smaller things like missiles and coherent energy-aka using capital weapons intelligently instead of holding still like an idiot while another idiot rams you in the style of Greco-Persian warfare.

like a noob.

because nobody really knows what the fleep they're doing.

which they did not.

okay, and then there's Case White, which demonstrates that the Terrans weren't much better than anyone else at it.  possibly lead in the water system or something, anyway, nobody builds 'em for a while after because ta-daaa!!! everybody's broke again.

so let's ride that advancing timeline.  Everyone is NOT broke again, and maybe some of the States have hired people who aren't suffering from inbreeding to do their naval planning, they've got money, they build ships.

so now they actually start figuring out a working doctrine.

Warships are "Offensive players", for high value targets that are heavily defended.

Pockets, are defense players.  They're actually pretty optimal for the defense role or as escorts/adjuncts to warships on offense.  From this, we can get a general 'feel' for a warship rich setting, and it looks like World War 2. 

Battleships had to hang back from most of those islands and other coastal areas, they had to be 'put at risk' to get close when firing inland on medium and larger islands, because scraping the reef rips your hull up.  In this situation, 'scraping the reef' is synonymous with "getting close to the planet" and "rips your bottom up" is synonymous with ****** up your jumpdrive, costing weeks to repair."

puts the droppers and the carrier fighters on the "close support during the landings" phase of anything that isn't a major strategic target.  Your warships are there to cover their backsides from the enemy force that is sure to show up during your invasion, or to clear out the naval defenses ahead of your invading army, then cover their backside from enemy reinforcement.

we can have LOTS of warships available for this, without losing the emphasis on the contesting of the only valuable thing in most campaigns-the planets, but they're not going to be wasted on petty  raiding or peacekeeping ops.

see how that works?  Unless you're MAJOR OBJECTIVE is to occupy a planet, the warships stay at home or do training drills, or are in movement to the planet you're actually intending to conquer and occupy.

because once it's gotten close, it's not leaving until it's had several weeks of downtime to recalibrate the jump-controller.

The trouble is this paradigm makes me feel like Warships are even more paper tigers/white elephants than they are now.  Add in as mentioned it doesn't remove the possibility of orbital bombardment and it just needs a lot more work to me.