Warship Race Redux

[marcussmythe]

evening gents , since you've opened up the ip about a century early , are the colonist still primarly taurian ex-pats ? if so are they also an offshoot faction of the farlookers as in canon . i see they have 10 js which if following canon would be about 1/4 of all js that the farlookers either owned outright or had a controling interest in . i could see the tc selling some of the old bull run , independence and marathon vessels to them to get rid of the trouble makers from out of their midst . maybe a few disassembled small shipyards to sweeten the pot as they wave bye bye to their thorns in the minus-x .

If you are interested in playing the Illryain Palatinate, Id certainly say that your knowledge is sufficient to let you define them how you will - and even if you dont, that makes sense.

Both the Marian Hegemony and the Palatinate are well before their time - Im generally willing to twist starting conditions to let people have fun.

[Hairbear541]

marcus , as i've already said , if i can get the calc sheet to work for me i would be more than happy to join as one of the periphery realms . till then i'm going to have to sit on the sidelines and dream .

[marcussmythe]

marcus , as i've already said , if i can get the calc sheet to work for me i would be more than happy to join as one of the periphery realms . till then i'm going to have to sit on the sidelines and dream .

Ahh, I must have missed where you said that.  Mea Culpa!

If the Google Sheet isnt working for you, I believe Heavy Metal Aero does warships, as does the designer in megamek... and theres at least one other spreadsheet out there.

What error are we hitting with the ‘sheet?

[UnLimiTeD]

Of the Major Powers, DC and CC are still unclaimed.  Of the Minors, most are - check the spreadsheet, linked off the first post.

Well, last time I wanted to Rimworlds, then got the FWL.
Guess I'll go the other side of the sphere this time and take the DC?
If someone else comes in and strongly demands those, I could of course take the CC, as well.
I'd have to read into everything again.

Do we still have the anemic fuel usage?

[marcussmythe]

Well, last time I wanted to Rimworlds, then got the FWL.
Guess I'll go the other side of the sphere this time and take the DC?
If someone else comes in and strongly demands those, I could of course take the CC, as well.
I'd have to read into everything again.

Do we still have the anemic fuel usage?

The Draconis Combine is yours.  Feel free to use the turn Smegish wrote, make up your own, or something else in between.  When your happy with it (or even when you want to post a work in progress), post it over at the IC/Turn posting thread:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68675.0

Fuel Usage is per the standard, published rules.

[UnLimiTeD]

Fuel use always irked be because it is ridiculously pointless and possibly based on an early misunderstanding.

I'll take a look.
Will take a bit to get into character.  ;D
The DC is occasionally a bit on the intense side, is it not?

[marcussmythe]

Fuel use always irked be because it is ridiculously pointless and possibly based on an early misunderstanding.

I'll take a look.
Will take a bit to get into character.  ;D
The DC is occasionally a bit on the intense side, is it not?

I get that, about Fuel, and Lagrange also argued for a change to greater fuel consumption based on real world math.  We elected to not change it, as it would make life very hard for a number of existing designs, and were trying very hard to minimize rule changes to only those absolutely necessary to make it work.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, nearly all designs I've seen have sufficient cargo space to store more fuel, and may also benefit from an existing logistics train.
Also, one could assume that engines inherently include enough fuel for a few days of operations. I've always assumed that having the jump core sort of bends spacetime to make exhaust exhibit FLT properties to cause the thrust ratings we see. Ah, nevermind.
Guess I just like logistics. ^^

Do we still have things like non-jump-capable ships?

[marcussmythe]

Well, nearly all designs I've seen have sufficient cargo space to store more fuel, and may also benefit from an existing logistics train.
Also, one could assume that engines inherently include enough fuel for a few days of operations. I've always assumed that having the jump core sort of bends spacetime to make exhaust exhibit FLT properties to cause the thrust ratings we see. Ah, nevermind.
Guess I just like logistics. ^^

Do we still have things like non-jump-capable ships?

By 'non-jump-capable', if you mean warships-with-no-core:  No, no monitors, and I dont think we had them last time?  Monitors are generally bad for the rules - their superpowerful in their home system, and superuseless otherwise, and if you say 'Warship Monitor' outloud three times, the Powers That Be close the thread.  Also, we never see them in canon.  :) 

If you mean Droppers and ASF and Small Craft, yes, but remember they are all generic.  If you mean Stations, yes, and you can design your own, but Im not sure they are what you mean by ships.

As regards logistics:  I like them too!  And depending on how far you want a ship to range, and how often you want it to use military power, I still encourage substantial fuel bunkerage.  A long chase in system at high thrust is going to drink fuel like WATER by comparison to puttering around at 1G on your transit drive, and if your planning on doing that long chase as a commerce raider 3 or 5 jumps deep in hostile space... better safe.

Cargo similarly.  If you build a no-cargo ship, your not going far, or if you are you are staying close to a collier or something that can serve as one based on its own cargo space, or youve got a life support string of JS and DS and the like feeding you - and those are vulnerabilities, too.  The more self-sufficient a warship can be, the easier and more resilient ops planning is, and I intend to make this matter. 

Now, that said, if the mission of the "Defender" class BB is that it never goes far from home and always travels with a massive fleet train, then feel free to give Defender a 1% Cargo Fraction and 1000 tons of fuel.  Just understand that youve build a HUGE pile of guns and armor and then greatly limited its utility in the name of slightly more blam, as opposed to giving up some % of your mission load to have a ship that can deploy long distance long duration for whatever use.

Of course, Dropship Collars can stand in for Cargo, but that means your hanging Cargo Droppers off those collars (and not something else), and for right now, small droppers dont carry much cargo.

[UnLimiTeD]

Yeh. Just having a 2% fuel fraction sounds so anaemic to me.  ;D Should be more like 10%.
I guess we'll stick with not having dropshuttle bays?
Economically speaking, drop collars are still madness.
I think we could actually create Monitors in the last run. It just didn't happen.

My faction is probably not exactly known for taking care of civilians or being overly conservative when it comes to storage, but luckily we're not completely bound to that.  ^-^
We don't have any option to launch debris at our opponents, do we?  ;)

[marcussmythe]

Yeh. Just having a 2% fuel fraction sounds so anaemic to me.  ;D Should be more like 10%.
I guess we'll stick with not having dropshuttle bays?
Economically speaking, drop collars are still madness.
I think we could actually create Monitors in the last run. It just didn't happen.

My faction is probably not exactly known for taking care of civilians or being overly conservative when it comes to storage, but luckily we're not completely bound to that.  ^-^
We don't have any option to launch debris at our opponents, do we?  ;)

Im not opposed to allowing dropshuttle bays, but Id like to hear from other people before deciding Y or N.  Ive tended to use groups of smallcraft in a similar fashion.

And its your navy.  Adopt the national character if you wish, or invite it to develop in its own directions!

[Smegish]

In the end we decided against monitors in the previous game IIRC.

[marcussmythe]

Ive looked at the Dropshuttle Rules.  To summarize them for the reader:
A Dropshuttle Bay costs 150M C-Bills (remember, warships get a final 2x multiplier, so the final cost will climb by 300m)

A Dropshuttle Bay weighs 11,000 tons.

Each Dropshuttle Bay consumes the same amount of space as 2 docking collars would, to the same total limits (1 Collar per 50kt, so 1 DS Bay per 100kt on a warship)

Each Dropshuttle Bay may handle 2 Dropshuttles, each of 5000 tons or less
   - in our game, a small dropship is also 5000 tons.  Thus a Dropshuttle Bay may handle 2 small dropships.

Suggest we ignore the distinction between DropSHIP and DropSHUTTLES for our purposes - small dropships double as small dropshuttles, and may ride on either collars or in bays.  Theres no real cost difference and the only rules differences are a distinction without a difference.

Considering allowing larger Dropshuttle Bays as the larger Dropship technologies get researched.  Say 4x as big and 4x as expensive for the medium version, and 20x as big and 20x as expensive for the large version, if we want to pursue that madness (A Large Dropshuttle Bay would consume 220KT of Space, and cost 3B CBills before modifier - 6 B after!)  It seems to me that once we get larger dropships, the classic collar economics start making more sense.

Thoughts?

[UnLimiTeD]

I think the main point of dropshuttle bays in the setting is for actual dropships, as combat droppers weren't common then, and they got phased out when drop collars became common. I would assume a ship cannot mount both, but that assumption is not grounded in rules knowledge.
The reason I like them is the cost.
Drop collars are outrageously priced - I just checked a Defender, and replacing its shuttle bays with collars (half the amount of ships, though potentially bigger ones) raises the cost by 2b or so?
Collars make sense for large drop ships.
We've just, in the last game, started and ended in an uncomfortable moment of BT history when large war-navy dropships didn't exist and accounting hadn't been invented yet, and with players having rather limited resources it was just uneconomical to field a large amount of dropships - meanwhile, fighters, which in the historical setting weren't really a thing, reigned supreme due to not having this cost attached (and a lack of modern Flak weaponry, and being able to carry capital missiles half their size).
Also, once reinforced repair bays are researched, you can hold a ship in one of those. Maybe ought to put a limit on those.

I've been writing a whole lot without really participating yet, though, so maybe I should just get on that and then see how my opinion matures.^^

Speaking of which, a question: Once we get to subcapitals, which damage scale will they use?

[marcussmythe]

I think the main point of dropshuttle bays in the setting is for actual dropships, as combat droppers weren't common then, and they got phased out when drop collars became common. I would assume a ship cannot mount both, but that assumption is not grounded in rules knowledge.
The reason I like them is the cost.
Drop collars are outrageously priced - I just checked a Defender, and replacing its shuttle bays with collars (half the amount of ships, though potentially bigger ones) raises the cost by 2b or so?
Collars make sense for large drop ships.
We've just, in the last game, started and ended in an uncomfortable moment of BT history when large war-navy dropships didn't exist and accounting hadn't been invented yet, and with players having rather limited resources it was just uneconomical to field a large amount of dropships - meanwhile, fighters, which in the historical setting weren't really a thing, reigned supreme due to not having this cost attached (and a lack of modern Flak weaponry, and being able to carry capital missiles half their size).
Also, once reinforced repair bays are researched, you can hold a ship in one of those. Maybe ought to put a limit on those.

I've been writing a whole lot without really participating yet, though, so maybe I should just get on that and then see how my opinion matures.^^

Speaking of which, a question: Once we get to subcapitals, which damage scale will they use?

1.)  Fighters:  This is why we changed the damage scaling and eliminated the 'house ruled' fighter missiles.  This is no criticism of last game, just a learn by doing.

2.)  Ill burn the reinforced repair bays bridge when I reach it.  My recollection is those things are also monstrously expensive, which would probably keep it under control, and I think have other drawbacks compared to a dedicated launch bay.

3.)  I think I like dropshuttle bays.  I think theyll prove inferior for raw carriage once large droppers are researched, even with LF Batteries... but it gives us options, and lets a warship carry a large unit to the ground without having to rely on orbital drops or small craft to deliver them (small craft vs. dropshuttles vs. dropships for troop deployment is an interesting set of choices, this way.  I like interesting choices)

4.)  Were a week out, but Id encourage people to get their turns in when they can.  If they all come in early, we will start processing turn early.

[sillybrit]

Re the cost of DropShuttle bays, it's not just the 150M price of the bay itself, as each bay also counts as 2 docking collars for the purposes of calculating KF drive costs. I can't recall the exact price of a collar, only that it's way under a million, so even accounting for the different unit cost multipliers a DropShuttle bay is going to be more expensive than a couple of collars.

[marcussmythe]

Re the cost of DropShuttle bays, it's not just the 150M price of the bay itself, as each bay also counts as 2 docking collars for the purposes of calculating KF drive costs. I can't recall the exact price of a collar, only that it's way under a million, so even accounting for the different unit cost multipliers a DropShuttle bay is going to be more expensive than a couple of collars.

That doesnt match my recollection.  I just got through reading the dropshuttle bay section in tacops and reading the warship cost formula in stratops.  It seemed clear that the things took -hull space- (presumably surface volume) as if they were two docking collars, but nothing about modifying the cost of the KF drive.

Which makes sense.  The whole point of the KF Collar is to extend and shape the KF field around (up to) another 100kt of vessel, and thats the only thing that justifies the ‘we didnt think this one through’ cost of the KF Collar.  A Dropshuttle Bay is just a hole on the side of the ship with a door covering the exit, nothing but a small craft bay writ large - nothing else to extend the KF field around, as its already there...

That said, if I missed something, I missed it - can you point me at the page?

[sillybrit]

IO p187:

DropShuttle Bays: Although they are not listed specifically
as “Primitive Prototype” equipment, DropShuttle Bays appear in
the same section, with a listed C-bill cost per each 2-shuttle bay.
Furthermore, each DropShuttle Bay also counts as the equivalent of
two docking collars for K-F Drive cost calculations (see p. 158, SO).

[marcussmythe]

Well, Ill be.

1.)  You are absolutely correct.  That rule does in fact say that, and I can only suppose I missed it despite staring right at it because ‘obviously’ putting the large shuttle inside the hull doesnt implicate the KF drive - thats what collar does.  Good catch, mea culpa.

2.)  I'll have to think about if  want to use that rule or not for this game - it doesnt make sense (at all), and it narrows the interesting choices.  I like lots of interesting trade offs in choices, more than one-thing-to-rule-them-all.  Lets see what people think.

((Edited.  I was a bit frustrated at myself for missing something that obvious, and got grumpy))

[Trace Coburn]

Yeh. Just having a 2% fuel fraction sounds so anaemic to me.  ;D Should be more like 10%.

  For whatever it’s worth, the last iteration of this game prompted me to try starting my own over on SpaceBattles.  It never got off the ground for various RL reasons, but I’ve sketched out some alternate rules for tech development, including fuel-efficiency of transit drives.

      1 Thrust Point = 1 Thrust (0.5g) sustained for 2 minutes (1 turn).  WarShips/JumpShips allocate fuel by mass-percentage, 0.01% of mass (0.0001 × Mass) being 30 Thrust Points (1 burn-hour) at Efficiency 1, or 3,000 Thrust Points per 1% fuel-fraction.
      (Note that transit-time from Earth to its zenith/nadir points is 9.1 days at 1g (i.e. 2 Thrust), or 13,104 points of fuel, requiring a fuel-fraction of 4.4% at Fuel Efficiency 1!  Similarly, recharging a jump-drive from a fusion powerplant requires 150 burn-hours (at 0.5g), i.e. 4500 Thrust Points, or a fuel-fraction of 0.15% at Efficiency 1.  Some rarer star-systems have habitable planets so far from the system-primary that the transit times are longer than 100 days, requiring fuel-fractions exceeding 20% at Efficiency 1, and so probably can’t be visited or settled until drive-efficiencies improve.)
      (Space stations expend 1 Thrust Point per hour of operation.)

  Note that in my rule-set, there’s no ‘tons/burn-day’ station-keeping/recharge-mode, and that Fuel Efficiency 1 is only for ‘legacy’ ships built pre-2300; anything the players built new after that point would enjoy, at the least, Fuel Efficiency 2 (4,500 Thrust Points per 1% fuel-fraction).  I was trying to create an ‘echo’ of the shift between coal-fired powerplants and oil-burning boilers, and the early steam-age’s emphasis on far-flung outposts where your fleets could replenish their fuel-bunkers.  (Tech-developments in later turns would’ve seen the possibility of some factions achieving Efficiency 3 or even Efficiency 4!)

  Again, FWIW and YMMV.

[marcussmythe]

  For whatever it’s worth, the last iteration of this game prompted me to try starting my own over on SpaceBattles.  It never got off the ground for various RL reasons, but I’ve sketched out some alternate rules for tech development, including fuel-efficiency of transit drives.

  Note that in my rule-set, there’s no ‘tons/burn-day’ station-keeping/recharge-mode, and that Fuel Efficiency 1 is only for ‘legacy’ ships built pre-2300; anything the players built new after that point would enjoy, at the least, Fuel Efficiency 2 (4,500 Thrust Points per 1% fuel-fraction).  I was trying to create an ‘echo’ of the shift between coal-fired powerplants and oil-burning boilers, and the early steam-age’s emphasis on far-flung outposts where your fleets could replenish their fuel-bunkers.  (Tech-developments in later turns would’ve seen the possibility of some factions achieving Efficiency 3 or even Efficiency 4!)

  Again, FWIW and YMMV.

Thats... really cool thoughts, and I agree on the ‘cosl v oil v nukes’.  I like the thought you put into it.

Not a change Im inclined to make for this game - I want outputs that ‘make sense’ in the RAW universe, and I think this sort of ‘change the universe’ gives us outputs that are radically different - but if I were reimagining more broadly, Id probably use this.

I hope RL calms down, and if you ever get a hankerin to run (so I can play!), holler.  OTOH, weve still got a House and several P realms open, if you wanna throw your hat in.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, guess that makes dropships worthless outside of jumpship operations, then.
I'll mostly stick with the existing starting layout for my faction, but I'll phase collars out again at my earliest convenience.

Though in Universe, collars won't be invented for decades, as will be the K-F Boom.
I wonder if the published pricing assumes Dropships equipped with K-F Booms, as, as marcusscythe said, it makes no sense for it to be that expensive. And where is the border where a ship goes from "free" (currently 200 tons) to "hideously expensive" (everything above, I assume, though I'm not sure)?
Also, didn't the Defender have 20 kT Shuttle Bays?

Regarding the rules transferability to regular RAW, we could always have a conversion process. Extra structure / armour just goes into cargo space, f.Ex.

[marcussmythe]

Well, guess that makes dropships worthless outside of jumpship operations, then.
I'll mostly stick with the existing starting layout for my faction, but I'll phase collars out over time

After discussion with Smegish, for purposes of this game, Dropshuttle Bays and non-KF Docking Collars no not implicate the KF Drive and do not increase its cost.

So feel free to build em, Unlimited.

[kindalas]

I just updated the IC thread with the revised Lyran Navy information.

I hope I got it right.

Kindalas

[marcussmythe]

Looks good!

I do have a few questions?

1.)  Your raider has no cargo - I see your aware of this, and have chosen it as an imperfection.  The GMs smile upon realistic, imperfect ships.  :)

2.)  I notice Heimdallr lost its vehicle carriage, but maintains the 60! small craft.  I had them to carry vehicles to the surface, a la Aliens.  60 small craft seem overkill for carrying down 2000 infantry, but I suppose it can drop 3 regiments in one pass.

3.)  Man, thats a biiig Jumper!  And it nicely illustrates how much cheaper collars are on jumpships (standard or custom) than on Dropships.  Given that you can lift 100 droppers, I suppose you dont need to carry your combat vehicles on the Heimdallr.

4.)  I like the new writing!  We will get the spreadsheet updated - I see you started before we locked it out - we did that to keep it safe, Id hate a random drive-by to delete it!

[UnLimiTeD]

Is it not possible to grant selective access?

[marcussmythe]

Is it not possible to grant selective access?

I dont speak fluent Google Docs - Smegish is managing that.  In the meantime, Im perfectly happy to move data from posted turns to the spreadsheet for people.

[kindalas]

Looks good!

I do have a few questions?

1.)  Your raider has no cargo - I see your aware of this, and have chosen it as an imperfection.  The GMs smile upon realistic, imperfect ships.  :)

2.)  I notice Heimdallr lost its vehicle carriage, but maintains the 60! small craft.  I had them to carry vehicles to the surface, a la Aliens.  60 small craft seem overkill for carrying down 2000 infantry, but I suppose it can drop 3 regiments in one pass.

3.)  Man, thats a biiig Jumper!  And it nicely illustrates how much cheaper collars are on jumpships (standard or custom) than on Dropships.  Given that you can lift 100 droppers, I suppose you dont need to carry your combat vehicles on the Heimdallr.

4.)  I like the new writing!  We will get the spreadsheet updated - I see you started before we locked it out - we did that to keep it safe, Id hate a random drive-by to delete it!

I didn't really see any questions here but I'll try to answer them.


1) short term it'll need a fleet tender, long term I expect a series of refits before the class dies in fire and doesn't get resurrected.

2) That's like 30 marines per small craft. More like 60 with supporting heavy weapons/ECM/point defense platforms. But also that means up 2000 troops to use in boarding actions.

3) I always found Battletech trade numbers to be minuscule so having a jumpship fleet with 10 collars as the default should help keep the economy strong. Same reason why I invested so heavily in mobile recharge stations. Now long chains aren't dependent on the weakest local economy for its links.

4) I think that all of the changes I made to the sheet before locking made it in. The only think that I noticed on review was that I had to cut the R&D for the Fero Aluminium Armor.

Did you want more IC doctrine and tactics notes?

[marcussmythe]

RE:  Sheet -

Yeah, on a close reread, all that I had to change was to chop FA.

Doctrine and Tactics:  Put as much in as you want.  Id aim for broad strokes and priorities - are we aggressive?  Defensive?  Are we focused on acheiving the mission at all costs, force preservation over all, or something in between?

Basically, if you enjoy writing it, do so.  It helps inform choices when were processing turns.  If its not your jam, dont, we will just kinda gap with what seems reasonable.

[Smegish]

Adjusted the Warship sheet to make the changes to the Dropshuttle bay costs. You now have the choice between light but expensive collars, or bulky but cheaper DS Bays, at least till you can build Droppers over 5Kt. New sheet in opening post.