System Monitor style Warships and random ideas

[MechWarriorFox]

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.

_____________________________________________

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.

[Hellraiser]

Warships have to have a KF Drive, its built right into the structure.

You have Dropships for inter-system travel & defense.

You have space stations for single point defense.

You have Jumpships w/ no Collars & extra Fighters for a mobile fleet yard.

If you want a WS that is mostly used for system defense then don't give it LFBs & restrict its movement to 1/2 or 2/3.

More than enough tonnage remains for weapons & armor.

[Ruger]

Pocket WarShips are as close as you can get with the official rules AFAIK.

Ruger

[Frabby]

I think this Sarna article exhaustively covers the topic:
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Monitor_(naval_concept)

[MechWarriorFox]

I think this Sarna article exhaustively covers the topic:
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Monitor_(naval_concept)

Thank you. :) Too bad that it is locked behind paid software... :(

[Frabby]

 ???  It is not. Sarna is a free wiki-style resource.
If you're seeing a barrier of some sort in this link, can you describe the problem?

[Maingunnery]

???  It is not. Sarna is a free wiki-style resource.
If you're seeing a barrier of some sort in this link, can you describe the problem?

He is talking about using the unofficial rules from Heavy Metal Aero, but in my opinion he is better off making PWS.

[Frabby]

<facepalm> Ok, I see that now. Move on, nothing to see here...  :-[

Though is essentially boils down to this: The Monitor rules assumed you can be take the KF drive out of the vessel and replace it with guns, armor, heat sinks.

The official LD ruling is that no, you can't, because that KF Drive structure happens to double as the ship's keel and even without the germanium-based KF Drive coils you'd have to install a similarly-sized steel or what-have-you scaffolding as a substitute structure, netting you very little for losing jump capability which could also be regarded as a crippling flaw in and of itself in what should otherwise be a strategic asset.

[MechWarriorFox]

<facepalm> Ok, I see that now. Move on, nothing to see here...  :-[

Though is essentially boils down to this: The Monitor rules assumed you can be take the KF drive out of the vessel and replace it with guns, armor, heat sinks.

The official LD ruling is that no, you can't, because that KF Drive structure happens to double as the ship's keel and even without the germanium-based KF Drive coils you'd have to install a similarly-sized steel or what-have-you scaffolding as a substitute structure, netting you very little for losing jump capability which could also be regarded as a crippling flaw in and of itself in what should otherwise be a strategic asset.

Oh... didn't know that.

[Onion2112]

The 100K ton Castrum class dropships from the Republic could almost qualify as a monitor

[Frabby]

It comes down to terminology.

"Monitor", as a role, can be filled by a variety of vessels. The Castrum is indeed a prime example, but many of the so-called "Pocket WarShip" DropShips are also good candidates. There are even some Small Craft that qualify. And some WarShips, too, even with their KF drive cores. (I like to ridicule any unit with less than 4 MP on general principle and find those with less than 3 MP generally useless, at least on the ground; I realize that WarShips have very different movement rules and that their thrust rating doesn't directly compare to ground MP, but still...)

"Monitor" as a naval design concept in BattleTech specifically refers to a WarShip, built under WarShip construction rules, but with the assumption that the KF drive core is a single cohesive component that can be pulled from the ship and replaced by other systems that have more tactical combat value. That assumption and any and all associated apocryphal or outright non-canon/fanon rules were shot down by Herb with Line Developer hat on.

[RifleMech]

It would be nice if KF Drives could trade range for weight. Then Monitors could have the bare minimum of a jump drive but still have more tonnage for weapons. Unfortunately the only jump drives that do that are on primitive jump ships. Plus they have a minimum jump distance which drives the weight up so there doesn't seem to be any weight savings so there's no reason to use them.:(

[dgorsman]

Does monitor stuff still fall under the old forum rules of "thou shall not discuss, or at best most carefully, under pain of moderator wrath"?  I remember it being a topic that can get rather excited.

[Maingunnery]

Does monitor stuff still fall under the old forum rules of "thou shall not discuss, or at best most carefully, under pain of moderator wrath"?  I remember it being a topic that can get rather excited.

It is a lot more relaxed now because the old monitor concept has been shot in the head and thrown into a ditch.
The need for such rules has also been undermined as the Casper Drones have been revealed to be just drone controlled WarShips, and we got PWS now which fill up that niche now.   

[Daryk]

Also Space Stations... Station Keeping drives are incredibly powerful as far as in system mobility.  Just not for tactical maneuvering.

[glitterboy2098]

It would be nice if KF Drives could trade range for weight. Then Monitors could have the bare minimum of a jump drive but still have more tonnage for weapons. Unfortunately the only jump drives that do that are on primitive jump ships. Plus they have a minimum jump distance which drives the weight up so there doesn't seem to be any weight savings so there's no reason to use them.:(

there are rules for making primitive jumpships. these are basically compact core ships but their KF drives are slightly smaller % of the mass, and they can only jump 15ly. they also can't use dropship collars. they usually have transit drives since they don't have collars.

the earliest warships were basically such craft with some guns, seems to me that you could probably use the more primitive KF drive tech to save some resources over a full up warship if meant for a defensive ship. use a corvette size for further savings, then give them plenty of fighter and smallcraft bays to give them not only some options for patrolling, but also some useful punch against bigger targets.

as usual though the problem is "if you can build an upgunned primtive jumpship, you can build a full up warship, just in fewer numbers", and the full on warship is more useful in every role but basic patrolling.

so assault dropships and PWS dropships end up filling the role instead.

[Atarlost]

The real advantages of warship monitors should be that you don't need a working compact KF core extruder, that you don't need germanium, and that some idiot who thinks he's the second coming of Douglas MacArthur can't strip defenses from your shipyard systems.  The first may occur to a point during the 2SW technological decline where warships could no longer be built, but monitors could be.  The second always applies but is a false economy for everyone but Comstar.  The third, though?  A warship with the nonfunctional component (KF Drive) quirk is cheap at twice the price if your concern is preserving the shipyards against the vagaries of politics. 

[Daryk]

All monitors really do is increase the number of nukes necessary to destroy a target.

[Ursus Maior]

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.

Well, what did you look into already? BattleTech is very geared towards its own background, so it adapts not so well into other backgrounds.

[RifleMech]

there are rules for making primitive jumpships. these are basically compact core ships but their KF drives are slightly smaller % of the mass, and they can only jump 15ly. they also can't use dropship collars. they usually have transit drives since they don't have collars.

the earliest warships were basically such craft with some guns, seems to me that you could probably use the more primitive KF drive tech to save some resources over a full up warship if meant for a defensive ship. use a corvette size for further savings, then give them plenty of fighter and smallcraft bays to give them not only some options for patrolling, but also some useful punch against bigger targets.

as usual though the problem is "if you can build an upgunned primtive jumpship, you can build a full up warship, just in fewer numbers", and the full on warship is more useful in every role but basic patrolling.

so assault dropships and PWS dropships end up filling the role instead.

Yes, thank you. I know there's primitive jumpships. The problem is the weight of their KF Drive. A standard Warship KF Drive weighs WarShip weight x .4525. A primitive jumpships KF Drive weighs 5% + 3% per light-year (with a minimum of 15).

So for a 1,000,000 warships the drive would weigh
Standard Warship 452,500 tons
Primitive Warship 500,000 tons

That's just the KF Drive. I haven't done the math yet on the rest of the ships. So it is possible to build a Primitive Warship but it'd be like the original USS Iowa BB-4 or BB-51 compared to the USS Iowa BB-61. Now if that 15 light year minimum wasn't there the KF drive would only weigh 50,000 tons. That'd make it more attractive as there's a lot more weight for weapons.

The real advantages of warship monitors should be that you don't need a working compact KF core extruder, that you don't need germanium, and that some idiot who thinks he's the second coming of Douglas MacArthur can't strip defenses from your shipyard systems.  The first may occur to a point during the 2SW technological decline where warships could no longer be built, but monitors could be.  The second always applies but is a false economy for everyone but Comstar.  The third, though?  A warship with the nonfunctional component (KF Drive) quirk is cheap at twice the price if your concern is preserving the shipyards against the vagaries of politics. 

That kind of forgets that Monitors are still Warships. They still have everything else Warships would have. They're just smaller with bigger guns than other warships and are usually designed for coastal or river warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)

That means they're not going to be built everywhere. They can go everywhere though. It just takes a long time to get there and the voyage can be very dangerous. For example, the Cerberus was built in England and went to Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMVS_Cerberus


In BT's case the universe requires a KF-Drive. So you're back to the TRO:2750 Bug-Eye with the Light Naval PPC. Under new rules I think the best is a NL-35. The next legal option is the Pocket Warship. Unless of course the minimum jump requirement were to be waved or reduced. Then a Monitor could be built and slowly moved to its deployment location. Or allow Dropships to mount Naval Weapons.

[Atarlost]

That kind of forgets that Monitors are still Warships. They still have everything else Warships would have. They're just smaller with bigger guns than other warships and are usually designed for coastal or river warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)

That means they're not going to be built everywhere. They can go everywhere though. It just takes a long time to get there and the voyage can be very dangerous. For example, the Cerberus was built in England and went to Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMVS_Cerberus


In BT's case the universe requires a KF-Drive. So you're back to the TRO:2750 Bug-Eye with the Light Naval PPC. Under new rules I think the best is a NL-35. The next legal option is the Pocket Warship. Unless of course the minimum jump requirement were to be waved or reduced. Then a Monitor could be built and slowly moved to its deployment location. Or allow Dropships to mount Naval Weapons.

Monitors in SF parlance usually refers to non-FTL capable ships.  More analogous to the original U.S.S. Monitor and other ships of her class, which could operate in coastal waters but was demonstrably not seaworthy. 

[RifleMech]

Monitors in SF parlance usually refers to non-FTL capable ships.  More analogous to the original U.S.S. Monitor and other ships of her class, which could operate in coastal waters but was demonstrably not seaworthy. 

Battletech isn't most SF though. In BT, a non FTL ship would be a Dropship. And again, most monitors are designed for coastal or river duties and aren't suited to crossing oceans. However it can be done, slowly, and with modifications and great risk.  It isn't a voyage one would undertake on a whim.

In BT terms, the monitor would be slow, traveling from one uninhabited system to another, hoping they'd make it to an inhabited system where they could refuel and resupply before continuing on to their destination. And during the voyage they'd be hoping they didn't breakdown as they'd be screwed since they're traveling off the standard shipping lanes and couldn't expect help

Now a ship that can't go from system to system would be the Dropship. And Dropships with full Naval weaponry is what most people think about when they want a Monitor. Personally, I don't see any technical reason why Dropships couldn't carry naval weaponry. I think it's an arbitrary decision to keep squadrons of dropships from destroying warship fleets. I'm also okay with that. I don't think Monitors (warship or dropship) would be as plentiful or as powerful as people think. They're not super McKennas. They'd really be more the Pocket Warship dropships, whether they can jump or not.

[Red Pins]

The fan book the OP really wants, is AFFC Navy.  Very well written, with rules for Monitors.

Let me know if you want a copy.I

*edit stupid tablet, what the neck is a rangoon?

[dgorsman]

In the current context, 'monitor' would suggest something that is limited to orbit/near orbit.  There isn't much justification for that kind of limit in BattleTech.

[Daryk]

*snip*

*edit stupid tablet, what the neck is a rangoon?

Rangoon is the former name of the capital city of the country formerly known as Burma.

[Atarlost]

Now a ship that can't go from system to system would be the Dropship. And Dropships with full Naval weaponry is what most people think about when they want a Monitor. Personally, I don't see any technical reason why Dropships couldn't carry naval weaponry. I think it's an arbitrary decision to keep squadrons of dropships from destroying warship fleets. I'm also okay with that. I don't think Monitors (warship or dropship) would be as plentiful or as powerful as people think. They're not super McKennas. They'd really be more the Pocket Warship dropships, whether they can jump or not.

I'm not sure what's so hard for you to grasp about making a ship just like a warship but with the nonfunctional (jumpdrive) quirk and the line item C-bill (or K-bill, but the Clans wouldn't have any reason to build them) price for the FTL core discounted by the difference between the price of germanium and the price of structural steel. 

Monitors are political.  The whole point is that they can't FTL travel AT ALL.  If it has a drop collar and can be carried by a jumpship it can be appropriated by the federal government or make the neighbors nervous.  A warship with the nonfunctional (jumpdrive) quirk can be built as a militia unit that cannot be usefully nationalized because it can never leave the shipyard system where it was built.  Shipyard systems, especially according to the companies that operate shipyards, merit such defensive investment.  Or alternately, a warship with the nonfunctional (jumpdrive) quirk can be built by Comstar at the surviving shipyards in the Sol system and they can invite their neighbors to send representatives to see that the keel is made of steel and has none of the coolant pipes or power couplings that a functional jump core would have and thus cannot possibly be used to invade them and that they shouldn't worry about Comstar's neutrality. 

When you're worried about your overlord stealing your defenses or the House Lords questioning your neutrality if you have mobile forces jumpships, even permitted capital weapons and unlimited armor thickness and the same price multiplier as warships, are no substitute for a warship with the nonfunctional (jumpdrive) quirk. 

[RifleMech]

I'm not sure what's so hard for you to grasp about making a ship just like a warship but with the nonfunctional (jumpdrive) quirk and the line item C-bill (or K-bill, but the Clans wouldn't have any reason to build them) price for the FTL core discounted by the difference between the price of germanium and the price of structural steel. 

Monitors are political.  The whole point is that they can't FTL travel AT ALL.  If it has a drop collar and can be carried by a jumpship it can be appropriated by the federal government or make the neighbors nervous.  A warship with the nonfunctional (jumpdrive) quirk can be built as a militia unit that cannot be usefully nationalized because it can never leave the shipyard system where it was built.  Shipyard systems, especially according to the companies that operate shipyards, merit such defensive investment.  Or alternately, a warship with the nonfunctional (jumpdrive) quirk can be built by Comstar at the surviving shipyards in the Sol system and they can invite their neighbors to send representatives to see that the keel is made of steel and has none of the coolant pipes or power couplings that a functional jump core would have and thus cannot possibly be used to invade them and that they shouldn't worry about Comstar's neutrality. 

When you're worried about your overlord stealing your defenses or the House Lords questioning your neutrality if you have mobile forces jumpships, even permitted capital weapons and unlimited armor thickness and the same price multiplier as warships, are no substitute for a warship with the nonfunctional (jumpdrive) quirk.

I grasp it just fine. I just don't see the point. You still have a KF Drive. It just doesn't work. Which means it's stuck in the system its made until its fixed or replaced. Which only helps the systems with shipyards.

Political or not, you can't just dock with another Warship like you can a Dropship and have it jump. KF Drives don't like operating in the presence of other KF Drives. Bad things happen. Even if you could, you just limited the size of the Warship to 100,000 tons max. Plus anything can be requisitioned by the House Lord. Including Warships. If the KF Drive doesn't work, the House Lord would just strip the Warship for parts, along with the shipyard that built it. Not that most militia can afford to build a shipyard and then a warship. Even if they could I doubt they'd do so. Having a Warship would definitely exceed the size of military the local lord could have. It'd be a pretty swift way of getting the House Lord's attention and saying, "Come squash me and take me stuff." Even worse warships attract nukes. Something no planetary lord wants in their neighborhood.

As for Comstar, that scenario makes no sense. If a Monitor can be transported it is still a threat to the other houses. Plus Comstar just let on that they can build warships. Why advertise that capability?

[Warship]

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.

[Daryk]

Space stations aren't "fixed".  A tenth of a G is extremely handy for positioning things outside of combat.

[Hellraiser]

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.

My take on the "Home" was that the tonnage for weapons came from reduced Cargo since she wasn't going to be traveling anywhere to support an invasion fleet.

The KF Drive was still there, just damaged beyond repair.

[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.

[idea weenie]

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.

Space stations can get into range, but are tactically immobile.  Their orbital adjustments would be trackable well in advance (since they only have .2 Thrust, vs an ASF having a minimum Thrust of 3).  A Space station at orbital speeds goes over the battlefield at roughly 4.76 miles/sec (using the ISS as a comparison), and each space hex is 18 miles across.  So every 3.78 seconds the space station will cross a space hex.  IIRC you have a max range of 7 hexes, so that is less than 30 seconds where the space station is able to provide ortillery.  The ortillery footprint of a space station is a circle 126 miles wide

A space station parked at the 'Jump point' is trying to patrol all of space outside of the Jump limit.  The station's weapons will not cover enough space, only its onboard Small Craft and ASF will.  Remember that the Zenith/Nadir Jump points are just the locations on the jump limit that are close to the poles of the star system.  They are not small wormhole-like locations like DS9, they are not like Jump holes from the Wing Commander movie, they are an entire region of space that is at a distance greater than the local star's Jump limit.

A space station between the planet and the jump points is avoided by the attacker in transit.

A space station in orbit won't be able to bring enemy space-based forces under fire since its orbit is easily known and avoided.  Having only .2 Thrust means a space station will take much longer than a Dropship to change its orbit, so it can be attacked whenever the invader feels like, and cannot pursue damaged attackers.

Compare that to a Warship that can 'hover' over the ground and fire turn after turn at the attackers.

Space stations can mount 3* the armor of a Warship, but is limited to an SI of 1.  Warships can have an SI of up to 30* its Max Thrust, and their Max Thrust can get high.  Assuming 3/5 accel, that means it can have up to 150 SI, massing 15,000 tons on a 100 kton ship, allowing up to 300 tons of armor, or about 75% of a station.  The Warship would also get bonus armor from its SI (15 pts).

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

Or a bubble on the exterior with armored hatches for crew to go through.

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

I wanted to work with existing weapons first, before going with custom weapons as well as custom rules.  But having a Naval Laser that is in the same damage range as an NPPC is a nice idea.

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.

True, I am trying to think of some way to show a difference between a giant satellite massing 300 tons, and a small space station massing 300 tons.  I was hoping to use the Hubble space telescope as an example of a satellite that required external maintenance aid, vs a space station that could repair itself.  But space stations have humans on board.

Then we would have to classify an unmanned CASPAR floating structure that is 2.5 MTon in mass.  It is unmanned, but can perform basic maintenance/repairs on itself.

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.

Putting the person in a closet on a Dropship means they have a small chance of escape, plus they have the familiar sounds of other human beings.  This is just a metal ball with nobody around, and nothing to breathe outside the metal shell.  Bonus is if the ball has a slowly deteriorating orbit, so if the prisoner causes trouble the jailers just let them burn on re-entry.  Add in a self-destruct charge on the outside if anyone without the proper codes gets close (or if it receives a transmission).

Pity about the various fixed costs for stations, that would make this prison ball very expensive.

[RifleMech]

Space stations can get into range, but are tactically immobile.  Their orbital adjustments would be trackable well in advance (since they only have .2 Thrust, vs an ASF having a minimum Thrust of 3).  A Space station at orbital speeds goes over the battlefield at roughly 4.76 miles/sec (using the ISS as a comparison), and each space hex is 18 miles across.  So every 3.78 seconds the space station will cross a space hex.  IIRC you have a max range of 7 hexes, so that is less than 30 seconds where the space station is able to provide ortillery.  The ortillery footprint of a space station is a circle 126 miles wide.

A space station parked at the 'Jump point' is trying to patrol all of space outside of the Jump limit.  The station's weapons will not cover enough space, only its onboard Small Craft and ASF will.  Remember that the Zenith/Nadir Jump points are just the locations on the jump limit that are close to the poles of the star system.  They are not small wormhole-like locations like DS9, they are not like Jump holes from the Wing Commander movie, they are an entire region of space that is at a distance greater than the local star's Jump limit.

A space station between the planet and the jump points is avoided by the attacker in transit.

A space station in orbit won't be able to bring enemy space-based forces under fire since its orbit is easily known and avoided.  Having only .2 Thrust means a space station will take much longer than a Dropship to change its orbit, so it can be attacked whenever the invader feels like, and cannot pursue damaged attackers.

Compare that to a Warship that can 'hover' over the ground and fire turn after turn at the attackers.

So since it can move, slowly, it can park over a ground location and provide ortillery? It could also sit in front of an approach. I know its not going to stop an incoming force but it could force them into a landing point further away. It could also force them to keep moving their dropship or eventually risk it being attacked from orbit. That'd deprive the force of repair and resupply, as well as a secure place to rest. It could also delay their departure and risk being caught by vengeful ground forces. Even if they don't get caught, its a lot of stress on the attackers.

I also don't mean it should try to patrol all of space. Just a point where the enemy needs to go through or go around. Going around takes more time that can be used by the defenders to prepare for their arrival. Going faster and the dropship uses more fuel and generates more stress on the crew and passengers.

Space stations can mount 3* the armor of a Warship, but is limited to an SI of 1.  Warships can have an SI of up to 30* its Max Thrust, and their Max Thrust can get high.  Assuming 3/5 accel, that means it can have up to 150 SI, massing 15,000 tons on a 100 kton ship, allowing up to 300 tons of armor, or about 75% of a station.  The Warship would also get bonus armor from its SI (15 pts).

So it's fast and well armored. Doesn't that takes away from weaponry?

I wanted to work with existing weapons first, before going with custom weapons as well as custom rules.  But having a Naval Laser that is in the same damage range as an NPPC is a nice idea.

It does sound fun.  >:D  I don't know how you can increase a weapons range without changing the weapon or using Extreme and LOS ranges.

True, I am trying to think of some way to show a difference between a giant satellite massing 300 tons, and a small space station massing 300 tons.  I was hoping to use the Hubble space telescope as an example of a satellite that required external maintenance aid, vs a space station that could repair itself.  But space stations have humans on board.

Then we would have to classify an unmanned CASPAR floating structure that is 2.5 MTon in mass.  It is unmanned, but can perform basic maintenance/repairs on itself.

I don't know on that one. Other than size, what's the difference between satellite and space station?  ???

Putting the person in a closet on a Dropship means they have a small chance of escape, plus they have the familiar sounds of other human beings.  This is just a metal ball with nobody around, and nothing to breathe outside the metal shell.  Bonus is if the ball has a slowly deteriorating orbit, so if the prisoner causes trouble the jailers just let them burn on re-entry.  Add in a self-destruct charge on the outside if anyone without the proper codes gets close (or if it receives a transmission).

Pity about the various fixed costs for stations, that would make this prison ball very expensive.

I would think they wouldn't want to escape when the only hatch opens to vacuum. Plus there's all kinds of noise abating equipment which would cut down on human contact.

[Col Toda]

Bang for the C-Bill optimized pocket warships and aerospace fighters  is by far a better investment . A 6 collar Starlord Jump Ship with 4 pocket warships in a Navel C3 network and 2 CV CV dropship should be able  to take on just about any warship that costs 2x as much to make and uses 2× the manpower  to boot . Offense or defense  it does not matter . Any loss taking down a warship means you just killed the domestic  planetary product for 25-50 years . Sinking that kind of concentrated  resources  in any one combat unit invites economic  disaster  . Look at the cold war one side builds a huge expensive  conventional  fleet of warships the other side goes bankrupt  trying to maintain military parity  using the same military doctrine  . War is as much or more about economics than concentrated firepower  .

A shipyard builds say a dozen pocket  warships a year or less than one warship . If you lose 10 pocket warships  for every warship taken out and lose about the same amount  of fighters you are ahead of the strategic game . The loss of trained crew in a warship represents  a huge infrastructure  investment  as well .
The trend of  going to pocket warships  and fighter carriers  seems to be permanent.  The combat vehicle  and mech resources  seem to be increasing  per unit while  the big Aerospace  units seem to be getting less investiture proportionally.  The proliferation of XL engines  and fuel cell on combat vehicles  it seems the ICE attrition  unit is being moved away from . Different  ERA different  doctrines  and hardware .

[RifleMech]

All that is true however, lose the jumpship and you lose the dropships too as they're now trapped in the system. You're also presuming a 5 on 1 fight. Why can't that warship also be carrying pocket warships?

[Minemech]

 If I had to give an example of a canon Monitor within the real naval warship class, it would be the Mako class. They are short ranged, but have brutal broadsides for their mass.

[Minemech]

 As for the design of system Monitors, I would think they would be more items of accident (KF Drive fried) than attempted canon construction, therefore designs ought to be improvised, and suit a roleplayer's needs.

[idea weenie]

So since it can move, slowly, it can park over a ground location and provide ortillery? It could also sit in front of an approach. I know its not going to stop an incoming force but it could force them into a landing point further away. It could also force them to keep moving their dropship or eventually risk it being attacked from orbit. That'd deprive the force of repair and resupply, as well as a secure place to rest. It could also delay their departure and risk being caught by vengeful ground forces. Even if they don't get caught, its a lot of stress on the attackers.

The station will only be overhead for 30 seconds, or one space turn.  In Battlemech scale you only have to worry about ortillery for 3 turns, and if you are performing a raid you can just land 'behind' where the space station just passed over, and not worry for the next ~90 minutes.  The station's orbit will be easily plottable, so you can tell the raider group that you will be landing at X location, moving to Y location at a certain time, then moving to Z location for pickup.  Each location you move to is where the space station's ortillery footprint just went past, so the ortillery is effectively useless.  You just need to tell the raiding group to not be in the open by HH:MM, otherwise they will be spotted and splattered.

Don't know off-hand the time needed to change the orbit of a space station, using the .1G thrust they are capable of.  But plotting that would be the function of a Longscan system, where it plots the maximum possible change for the space station, the resulting ortillery locations, and allows the Captain of the raiders to be outside that attack area.  With the low acceleration of a space station, and only 90 minutes of advance prediction needed, this is fairly easy (scroll down to the Trumpet Bell Effect, and figure that as a rough estimate of the orbital path a space station will take as seen from 'above').

If it is a full attack needing dedicated ground repair/resupply, the space station should be fighting for its life against enemy ASF/Dropships.

I also don't mean it should try to patrol all of space. Just a point where the enemy needs to go through or go around. Going around takes more time that can be used by the defenders to prepare for their arrival. Going faster and the dropship uses more fuel and generates more stress on the crew and passengers.

Space is really big and empty.  The space station's orbit will be fairly easy to spot.  Intercepting at the jump Point (Zone) is practically impossible (unless you are using ASF/Small Craft/Dropships).  Intercepting between either of the Jump Zones and the target planet means you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong, plus there is so much empty space that the Dropship can easily go around.  Intercepting in orbit means that the space station has to be in the right orbit at the right time, and the Dropship can just observe the space station and stay behind it transmitting "Neener-neener"

So it's fast and well armored. Doesn't that takes away from weaponry?

Warships carry the same weapons as a space station, and can maneuver to focus fire on a single target while minimizing return fire.  If the space stations cluster together for protection (an Empire State Formation), they are leaving the rest of the planet unprotected.

It does sound fun.  >:D  I don't know how you can increase a weapons range without changing the weapon or using Extreme and LOS ranges.

House rules are the only option I can see.

I don't know on that one. Other than size, what's the difference between satellite and space station?  ??? 

From what I can see, there should be almost no difference.  Tactical Operations mentions that Medium satellites can be manned for various operations, so habitability is not the issue. The 2.5 MTon CASPAR space station would be unmanned, so technically it could be either.  Satellites built without engine systems can be built unmanned, but this limits what systems can be installed in them (i.e. anything that needs a human).  But that still counts as a satellite, not a space station.

Perhaps a space station is designed as something that can keep a separate environment from the vacuum outside?  This could be a dedicated gas chamber for detecting fusion reactors, to life support for humans, to an orbital aquarium.  A CASPAR system needs a separate cooling environment for its main supercomputer, while basic targeting systems don't.

A satellite is not designed for making the separate environment, and adding that capability would increase costs (eventually it would be cheaper to make it a space station).

I would think they wouldn't want to escape when the only hatch opens to vacuum. Plus there's all kinds of noise abating equipment which would cut down on human contact.

Ah, you means putting the prisoner in an airlock, and disabling the internal door.  I was assuming an internal cell/box,

[Maingunnery]

What do you think about satellites as primitive space stations?

[idea weenie]

What do you think about satellites as primitive space stations?

That could work, as habitable spaces could be seen as an add-on to the existing power and cooling structures of the ISS.  Sealable doors between components quarters would reflect different life support environments, which are more expensive than if you were able to build the whole thing in orbit.

So a satellite might be half the cost multiplier of a space station, but anything habitable costs 4(?) times as much?  This would make Satellites cheaper for communications/sensors/experiments, but putting people in it means the costs go up faster.

[RifleMech]

The station will only be overhead for 30 seconds, or one space turn.  In Battlemech scale you only have to worry about ortillery for 3 turns, and if you are performing a raid you can just land 'behind' where the space station just passed over, and not worry for the next ~90 minutes.  The station's orbit will be easily plottable, so you can tell the raider group that you will be landing at X location, moving to Y location at a certain time, then moving to Z location for pickup.  Each location you move to is where the space station's ortillery footprint just went past, so the ortillery is effectively useless.  You just need to tell the raiding group to not be in the open by HH:MM, otherwise they will be spotted and splattered.

That's the thing though. The time factor would put pressure on the raiders to hurry. The defenders would also know routes, best landing places, and how long it'd take the station to be overhead. They could plot out where the raiders could be and arrange to meet them. Plus any delay on the ground means the station gets closer to firing on them.

Don't know off-hand the time needed to change the orbit of a space station, using the .1G thrust they are capable of.  But plotting that would be the function of a Longscan system, where it plots the maximum possible change for the space station, the resulting ortillery locations, and allows the Captain of the raiders to be outside that attack area.  With the low acceleration of a space station, and only 90 minutes of advance prediction needed, this is fairly easy (scroll down to the Trumpet Bell Effect, and figure that as a rough estimate of the orbital path a space station will take as seen from 'above').

Other than guessing does Battletech have systems like that? As for plotting that can be used both ways.

If it is a full attack needing dedicated ground repair/resupply, the space station should be fighting for its life against enemy ASF/Dropships.

One would think so. The old saying, "No plan survives contact with the enemy" is still valid though and applies to raids. What should  be a simple snatch and grab and turn into a pitched battle or a game of hide and seek. All kinds of things can go wrong which could require resupply and repairs.

Space is really big and empty.  The space station's orbit will be fairly easy to spot.  Intercepting at the jump Point (Zone) is practically impossible (unless you are using ASF/Small Craft/Dropships).  Intercepting between either of the Jump Zones and the target planet means you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong, plus there is so much empty space that the Dropship can easily go around.  Intercepting in orbit means that the space station has to be in the right orbit at the right time, and the Dropship can just observe the space station and stay behind it transmitting "Neener-neener"

I never said it'd be easy. Plus all those things distract from the enemies mission.

Warships carry the same weapons as a space station, and can maneuver to focus fire on a single target while minimizing return fire.  If the space stations cluster together for protection (an Empire State Formation), they are leaving the rest of the planet unprotected.

Yes warships can maneuver but doesn't the weight of those engines take from the tonnage that could be used on weapons?

House rules are the only option I can see.

Most likely. I prefer to try to apply existing rules though, even if they need bending a little. Adding Extreme and LOS ranges is simple. Trying to work out rules for Rail Guns not so simple.

From what I can see, there should be almost no difference.  Tactical Operations mentions that Medium satellites can be manned for various operations, so habitability is not the issue. The 2.5 MTon CASPAR space station would be unmanned, so technically it could be either.  Satellites built without engine systems can be built unmanned, but this limits what systems can be installed in them (i.e. anything that needs a human).  But that still counts as a satellite, not a space station.

I would think that Drone Remote Systems could also be used to have unmanned Satellites.

Perhaps a space station is designed as something that can keep a separate environment from the vacuum outside?  This could be a dedicated gas chamber for detecting fusion reactors, to life support for humans, to an orbital aquarium.  A CASPAR system needs a separate cooling environment for its main supercomputer, while basic targeting systems don't.

A satellite is not designed for making the separate environment, and adding that capability would increase costs (eventually it would be cheaper to make it a space station).

I'd say that Space Stations are intended to be manned while Satellites, being manned is just an option. Thing is real life early space stations were Satellite sized. Even the larger ones were made up of satellite sized sections. So for me the only difference really isn't the size but having a crew. It doesn't work with the rules but that's how I think of them.

Ah, you means putting the prisoner in an airlock, and disabling the internal door.  I was assuming an internal cell/box,

One with lots of sound proofing and no windows.

[idea weenie]

That's the thing though. The time factor would put pressure on the raiders to hurry. The defenders would also know routes, best landing places, and how long it'd take the station to be overhead. They could plot out where the raiders could be and arrange to meet them. Plus any delay on the ground means the station gets closer to firing on them.

The fun part is a raiding Dropship can pick one of several locations, using their 1.5 G engine to rapidly change target location.  Unless the defenders know what the raiders are going after, there are plenty of nice targets.  Factories, water purification sites, precious metals, local jails (for pirate recruits), warehouses, etc.

But that is standard for any raid that occurs and the defenders know the incoming Drosphip is hostile.

Other than guessing does Battletech have systems like that? As for plotting that can be used both ways.

When one side has at least 30* the acceleration capability of the other side, plotting their landing site is a matter of guessing what they want based on available data and hoping they won't change course

One would think so. The old saying, "No plan survives contact with the enemy" is still valid though and applies to raids. What should  be a simple snatch and grab and turn into a pitched battle or a game of hide and seek. All kinds of things can go wrong which could require resupply and repairs.

The repairs can be performed on the Dropship, or just dump the mangled Mek into the cargo bay to deal with while leaving.  Attackers would have strict rules about how long to stay before their ride comes under fire.  ASF at a nearby spaceport would be a bigger threat than a space station.

Plus, if there is a space station for defense, I expect the attacker to ask for more money up front, either to hire more people/Mechs, or to purchase replacement Mechs that are abandoned due to damage.

I never said it'd be easy. Plus all those things distract from the enemies mission.

Space stations at the Z/N (or between the planet and the Jump points) without ASF, Small Craft, or DS support are at best notes for the attackers to ignore.  The best use for a space station in any of those locations is a forward observer to let the planet know what will be arriving.

Yes warships can maneuver but doesn't the weight of those engines take from the tonnage that could be used on weapons?

The engines take away tonnage, but if 3 Warships can bring their weapons to bear on a single space station due to the Warships maneuvering to keep the others out of range, then the space stations can be swatted one at a time.  The Space stations cannot support each other, and when the Warships are finished they can choose to leave (or having each of them leave as their armor gets reduced).  A space station with weak armor cannot retreat to protection of its fellow stations.

[RifleMech]

The fun part is a raiding Dropship can pick one of several locations, using their 1.5 G engine to rapidly change target location.  Unless the defenders know what the raiders are going after, there are plenty of nice targets.  Factories, water purification sites, precious metals, local jails (for pirate recruits), warehouses, etc.

But that is standard for any raid that occurs and the defenders know the incoming Drosphip is hostile.

Sure but it is possible for a station to be parked in a location where the dropships movements would give a good indication of where they're going. Plus if the dropship moves to avoid the station you know its hostile and the defenders can prepare accordingly.

When one side has at least 30* the acceleration capability of the other side, plotting their landing site is a matter of guessing what they want based on available data and hoping they won't change course

okay

The repairs can be performed on the Dropship, or just dump the mangled Mek into the cargo bay to deal with while leaving.  Attackers would have strict rules about how long to stay before their ride comes under fire.  ASF at a nearby spaceport would be a bigger threat than a space station.

Plus, if there is a space station for defense, I expect the attacker to ask for more money up front, either to hire more people/Mechs, or to purchase replacement Mechs that are abandoned due to damage.

Depending on the era Mech's aren't going to be abandoned if it can be avoided. With strict times the Dropship could take off to avoid the Station but don't repairs under heavy or zero g take longer? Plus there's the travel time to get back to the ground units. Also isn't anything that throws off the attackers time table a good thing for the defenders?  The Dropship could keep avoiding the Station but the longer they stick around the more likely they'll miss their jumpship.

That would come under contract negotiations and depending on the era and the mission those hiring the merc might be agreeable to some compensation or laugh at them.

Space stations at the Z/N (or between the planet and the Jump points) without ASF, Small Craft, or DS support are at best notes for the attackers to ignore.  The best use for a space station in any of those locations is a forward observer to let the planet know what will be arriving.

Even if the Space Stations didn't have ASF, SC, or DS, and I would think they'd have something, the early warning they can give the defenders would still spoil the attacker's plans.

The engines take away tonnage, but if 3 Warships can bring their weapons to bear on a single space station due to the Warships maneuvering to keep the others out of range, then the space stations can be swatted one at a time.  The Space stations cannot support each other, and when the Warships are finished they can choose to leave (or having each of them leave as their armor gets reduced).  A space station with weak armor cannot retreat to protection of its fellow stations.

If the stations aren't placed right then no, they're not going to be able to support each other. Having the station outnumbered doesn't help either.

[Charistoph]

Monitors in SF parlance usually refers to non-FTL capable ships.  More analogous to the original U.S.S. Monitor and other ships of her class, which could operate in coastal waters but was demonstrably not seaworthy.

Not in all cases.  There are a few where they are of a more titanic scale of ship, such as in Starfire and Dropfleet series.

Of course, there is the Monitor class of wet water vessel in the Battletech universe which could cause some level of confusion, along with the Hegemony Essex-class Warship to also be added to the not-Pocket Warships.

Yes warships can maneuver but doesn't the weight of those engines take from the tonnage that could be used on weapons?

Yes, however maneuver is one of the great strengths in battle allowing one to control initiative and there are many land forts in history who have faced naval fleets who found that out the hard way.  It's one of the strengths that the Navy has over the Air Force.

[RifleMech]

Yes, however maneuver is one of the great strengths in battle allowing one to control initiative and there are many land forts in history who have faced naval fleets who found that out the hard way.  It's one of the strengths that the Navy has over the Air Force.

Agreed.