Author Topic: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class  (Read 17576 times)

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« on: 13 October 2018, 02:53:07 »
I still want to load one of these up with Excaliburs. Just to have a stupidly large number of vehicles. (Read my sig.)

That said, if I'm ever in a game where that matters, it'd probably be finished in my 60s.

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7909
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #1 on: 13 October 2018, 03:58:42 »
Five medium naval PPCs would do the same damage as three heavy naval ppcs for the same mass. I think it even works out to the same heat.

In fact, the only real negative to the original TRO 2750 battery would be an increased crew requirement. In return you'd gain superior bracketing capability.

I kind of wonder if the person who codified the Potemkin in 3057 used the stats in the back of the old Battlespace book and just interpreted them as best as he could. I don't recall those stat blocks providing specific details on the weapons, just the bay types and the damage each bay did.

It might also be worth mentioning the Lyran Potemkin that served during the First Succession War during the raid of Luthien, completely loaded down with carrier and assault dropships. That had to be a terrifying sight.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #2 on: 13 October 2018, 04:06:15 »
Actually, yes you're right :) 5 x Med NPPC's = 45 damage which is the same as the triple Heavy NPPC's and the heats identical along with the mass, as you said the only minor change would be a slight increase in crew but nothing absurd.  Hell why not put both batteries on, two quin Medium NPPC mounts and one triple would be a hell of a punch, and its not like she's lacking the cargo space to give up to do it.  But then again, that might very well encourage someone to actually try using the Potemkin as a battleship, and thats not what she's there for.

And yeah with the stats changes and the like, probably a case of winging it, we have to remember that there wasn't really any WarShip construction rules in place when they made them.
« Last Edit: 13 October 2018, 04:16:02 by marauder648 »
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #3 on: 13 October 2018, 06:43:23 »
Which is likely why the yhave so much cargo. Doesn't explain how little fuel they often carry, though.
The Potemkin is one interesting ship. I wonder what the original, smaller version would have looked like.
Probably actually less than half as capable, if one aims to keep protection similar. Couldn't recreate a Potemkin for the listed price, but I'm sure a smaller one would be cheaper.
Regarding construction:
How wide was that gravdeck actually? Having just one for so many people seems low, and I remember someone writing that was a shortcoming.
But if it runs the length of the hull, I got another question: How does that even work?
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #4 on: 13 October 2018, 07:04:50 »
The original art seemed to indicate the ship was broken into three rather distinct sections (which my Plog commission carries on) with a distinct engineering section aft, a kind of command section forwards with the admidships given over to cargo and passengers.  The grav deck would then be a big long drum running the inside of the ship surrounded by the outer hull which would mount the DropShips, weapons etc with the inner part, the Grav deck being a several hundred meter long building on its side (say 900 meters ish?).

I would assume that any loading of cargo etc would have to be done with the grav deck shut down before spinning up again.  Really the internal layout makes little sense and I'm just guestimating here.  Lots of SLDF ships have multiple grav decks and I have no idea how that would work.  The Potemkin's single grav deck is 90 meters in diameter although the books don't say how long it is, but looking at the size of the ship, its general layout, it would make sense its a rather long one going down a good bit the length of the hull.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #5 on: 13 October 2018, 07:24:58 »
It's just not very structurally sound to have a very long section where the outer hull and core are not connected.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #6 on: 13 October 2018, 07:37:58 »
*shrugs* I don't think they did physics when working this out :D
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #7 on: 13 October 2018, 08:07:59 »
I have a love/hate relationship with the Potemkin. I love it because other ships win battles, this is what you use to win wars. I hate it because it kills threads. You always get someone talking about loading 25 of whatever their favorite DropShip class is into one (usually a carrier or PWS), and every single time, the post immediately before that was the last one worth reading. It is the physical incarnation of Godwin's Law.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #8 on: 13 October 2018, 08:10:53 »
I have a love/hate relationship with the Potemkin. I love it because other ships win battles, this is what you use to win wars. I hate it because it kills threads. You always get someone talking about loading 25 of whatever their favorite DropShip class is into one (usually a carrier or PWS), and every single time, the post immediately before that was the last one worth reading. It is the physical incarnation of Godwin's Law.

But with this as its theme tune

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smepzzlgw1g
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #9 on: 13 October 2018, 08:17:55 »
No sound on my phone, so no clicky. Besides, if the greatest piece of music ever conceived of by mankind(The Imperial March) can't excuse a homogenous Potemkin load, nothing can.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Luciora

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5802
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #10 on: 13 October 2018, 08:20:38 »
If I remember, this was also nicknamed the corncob cruiser because of how the dropship collars were arranged, so, while nice commission, -1 for missing that bit of lore.

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #11 on: 13 October 2018, 08:25:18 »
The corncob comes about from the dropship positioning which was not really fully explained (or shown in the 2750) book, and the 3057 abomination had them just landing all over the ship which would have played unholy hell with any internal layout.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #12 on: 13 October 2018, 08:29:30 »
I dunno Weirdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ_hgmGEhsw

works pretty good too, along with Dies Irae by Karl Jenkins :p
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Luciora

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5802
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #13 on: 13 October 2018, 08:39:05 »
Fair assessment.  It's not like anyone has real world space combat design experience to create these things properly.  :))

It is a really nice picture though. 

The corncob comes about from the dropship positioning which was not really fully explained (or shown in the 2750) book, and the 3057 abomination had them just landing all over the ship which would have played unholy hell with any internal layout.

Sjhernan3060

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1816
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #14 on: 13 October 2018, 10:10:16 »
Marauder! Thank you so much for taking my request this was a great write up! More to say later but wanted to thank you.

Fallen_Raven

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3719
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #15 on: 13 October 2018, 10:50:39 »
I have a love/hate relationship with the Potemkin. I love it because other ships win battles, this is what you use to win wars. I hate it because it kills threads. You always get someone talking about loading 25 of whatever their favorite DropShip class is into one (usually a carrier or PWS), and every single time, the post immediately before that was the last one worth reading. It is the physical incarnation of Godwin's Law.

I must test this theory! Load 25 Leopards on board for 25 simultaneous lance sized battles. Now the in-universe strategists have the same problems we do.  :)
Subtlety is for those who lack a bigger gun.

The Battletech Forums: The best friends you'll ever fire high-powered weaponry at.-JadeHellbringer


UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #16 on: 13 October 2018, 14:36:02 »
I'm not sure why it would be so great to have all docking collars on the same side.
Would seem to me that the giant cargo hold is best assessed from multiple directions, what with it only having one external door.
Also makes docking a whole lot less confusing if you don't have to double-check your on the right one and not ramming someone.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12024
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #17 on: 13 October 2018, 17:16:18 »
The corncob comes about from the dropship positioning which was not really fully explained (or shown in the 2750) book, and the 3057 abomination had them just landing all over the ship which would have played unholy hell with any internal layout.
actually the 3057 art appears to have the docking collars arranged radially, in rings down the length of the ship. there are 4 rings, so the pattern wouldn't be as simple as 5 per ring (you'd probably have to do 7,6,6,6), the implication appears to have been that the docking collars are staggered in layout, probably to simplify docking some when the ship is already loaded with more than a few dropships. a fully loaded Potemkin using such a layout would actually look rather like a corncob.

the IWM miniature went with this interpretation:


personally i rather like the 3057 art.. it looks more logical for its role, and isn't going to be be confused for.. well, any other TRO2750 SLDF warship. seriously, this thing in TRo2750 looks way too much like the TRO2750 Cameron, or an upsidedown TRO2750 congress. and or a Black Lion with the "fins" at a different angle.

unlike most of the TRo3057 art, this thing feels Btechy.. its basically a massive jumpship.. a long cylinder that huals rings of dropships. only this one is massive and has an actual transit drive.

as far as the bow indent goes.. personally i'd make that where the main cargo hatches and smallcraft bays are located. babylon 5 style, perhaps drawing on the old Cruiser Class Cruiser as the in universe inspiration.
« Last Edit: 13 October 2018, 17:27:13 by glitterboy2098 »

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13072
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #18 on: 13 October 2018, 17:54:11 »
Five medium naval PPCs would do the same damage as three heavy naval ppcs for the same mass. I think it even works out to the same heat.

In fact, the only real negative to the original TRO 2750 battery would be an increased crew requirement. In return you'd gain superior bracketing capability.

I kind of wonder if the person who codified the Potemkin in 3057 used the stats in the back of the old Battlespace book and just interpreted them as best as he could. I don't recall those stat blocks providing specific details on the weapons, just the bay types and the damage each bay did.

It might also be worth mentioning the Lyran Potemkin that served during the First Succession War during the raid of Luthien, completely loaded down with carrier and assault dropships. That had to be a terrifying sight.

One has to wonder how difficult it was to look up TRO2750 & TRO3057 at the same time when finalizing the RS.
The horror of opening 2 books.
There really is no excuse for mistakes like that.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Sjhernan3060

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1816
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #19 on: 13 October 2018, 18:31:00 »
I know one of these was one of two last jag warships. Could any one remind me when it got to huntress ( if it did)?

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7909
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #20 on: 13 October 2018, 18:52:18 »
One has to wonder how difficult it was to look up TRO2750 & TRO3057 at the same time when finalizing the RS.
The horror of opening 2 books.
There really is no excuse for mistakes like that.

Well, much like the poor Congress and Sovetski Soyuz, once it was codified in TRO3057, it became the truth. And there are some very obvious indications that not everybody involved in 3057 had access to all the relevant material.

I think the best thing we could hope for is to possibly get a variant that uses the original weapon configuration (if I were to fluff it I'd probably call it the earlier model which was changed to reduce manpower and support costs while keeping parts commonality with the McKenna). That sort of thing is how we got the Congress-D, after all.

I know one of these was one of two last jag warships. Could any one remind me when it got to huntress ( if it did)?

Never made it back to Huntress. It found leftovers from the Ice Hellions running around in their own Potemkin, then one ship was stripped to keep the other going (I can't remember which one off the top of my head). The hellions ended up with the Goliath Scorpions after that.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25002
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #21 on: 13 October 2018, 22:02:56 »
A variant we don't have stats for is the ArcShips.  Which number of Potemkins were converted by the renamed Diamond Sharks for their mobile home/factories for the post-Jihad era.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13072
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #22 on: 14 October 2018, 00:27:50 »
I think they were basically just Potemkins w/ Cargo droppers (Behemoths, Mammoths, Mules, etc etc) attached to them permanently & with some of the cargo bays turned into Factory/Barracks space.

I assume we won't see those stats because every one of them is different from each other.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

drakensis

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #23 on: 14 October 2018, 03:07:17 »
But, flush with funds following the Reunification War the Admiralty and SLDF could afford the huge price of these massive ships and 106 would be constructed with the first leaving the slips in 2611 and the last being completed in 2871
I suspect there may be a slight error there. It seems unlikely Potemkins were in production through both the First and Second Succession Wars.
"It's national writing month, not national writing week and a half you jerk" - Consequences, 9th November 2018

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #24 on: 14 October 2018, 04:27:21 »
Damn, so I actually had the dates right in my head. I wondered that, too, but thought "well, maybe they actually were. I dunno where the yards are, maybe comstar....".
^^
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7180
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #25 on: 14 October 2018, 04:30:12 »
I suspect there may be a slight error there. It seems unlikely Potemkins were in production through both the First and Second Succession Wars.
The Clans perhaps?
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #26 on: 14 October 2018, 04:40:52 »
Oops! I mean..err..well done! You spotted the error and passed the test to see if you was really reading the article.

Here have...um...

err..

This chibi Hunchback!



And yes it was an error :D  Although the date of 2781 still makes little actual sense as this was AFTER the Amaris Civil War, when they were apparently scrapping them.  So yay for lore contradictions. 
« Last Edit: 14 October 2018, 04:45:53 by marauder648 »
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7180
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #27 on: 14 October 2018, 05:46:54 »

Well if one is taking parts of crippled Potemkins and making 'new' ones with them,
 then it can be seen as both scrapping the crippled ones and building new ones. 
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6124
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #28 on: 14 October 2018, 06:10:18 »
One has to wonder how difficult it was to look up TRO2750 & TRO3057 at the same time when finalizing the RS.
The horror of opening 2 books.
There really is no excuse for mistakes like that.

They couldn't keep the Thera and Conqueror's stats straight between the Field Manuals, AT2:RS, and TRO:3067. Hopefully we have them finally bedded down with TRO3067U. It didn't help Heavy Metal Aero recorded the stats incorrectly and added a bunch on non-canon extras like food.

You think it would be easy but hard experience has shown that large craft are an order of magnitude harder to fact check and edit. There are so many points of failure.

Fallen_Raven

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3719
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #29 on: 14 October 2018, 11:20:37 »
Do we know if the Potemkin was used for transporting to the frontlines, or was it for strategic reshuffling? Being able to rotate battalions between garrisons near the front seems useful, maybe even useful enough to dedicate an armed mega freighter.
Subtlety is for those who lack a bigger gun.

The Battletech Forums: The best friends you'll ever fire high-powered weaponry at.-JadeHellbringer


glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12024
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #30 on: 14 October 2018, 12:07:08 »
If you want to move a battalion around, you use an overlord and a regular jumpship. The Potemkin is for when you gotta shift a whole Division.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7180
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #31 on: 14 October 2018, 12:17:00 »

Upon consideration, the Potemkin might be the most useful Star League WarShip.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #32 on: 14 October 2018, 14:04:53 »
In the sense that it was actually needed, and fulfilled its role?
I guess that argument could be made.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Fallen_Raven

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3719
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #33 on: 14 October 2018, 15:37:42 »
If you want to move a battalion around, you use an overlord and a regular jumpship. The Potemkin is for when you gotta shift a whole Division.

I was thinking about how you could move several battalions forward from home, pick several more up from their staging areas, switch out passengers along the front, and bring a scattered division back with you. So you aren't moving a single formation so much as saving a dozen trips back and forth for a Jumpship by making a single loop through the theater.
Subtlety is for those who lack a bigger gun.

The Battletech Forums: The best friends you'll ever fire high-powered weaponry at.-JadeHellbringer


Sjhernan3060

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1816
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #34 on: 14 October 2018, 18:36:30 »
With limited engagements being the rule of the day for the clans would these have seen much combat use Pre revival?

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #35 on: 15 October 2018, 01:11:48 »
With their carrying capacity the Potemkin would be the prime mover for military units on a large deployment, but their running/operating costs would probably prevent them from being used as a super-freighter.  You'd use dropships if the SLDF wanted to move a Regiment. A Potemkin or a pair of them could easily move a Brigade so instead of having a score of JumpShips you reduce your logistical footprint down to two WarShips and any attendant escorts (which would have to be with the JumpShips anyhow).

As for the Clans, with their smaller military sizes, there's simply no need to fully load up a Potemkin. Hell one Potemkin could have carried ALL of Nicholas' warriors Mech's during KLONDYKE if it was loaded with nothing but Overlords.  They might have seen SOME use, but for the Clans, their carrying capacity is overkill until REVIVAL.  But we know the Clans understanding of Logistics was, for the most part that they knew of the word, but not the idea or what it meant.  Some fully loaded Potemkins with REVIVIAL would have made thins probably a fair bit easier as you could use a Potemkin or two in each Invasion corridor as a mobile supply base.
« Last Edit: 15 October 2018, 01:19:26 by marauder648 »
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #36 on: 16 October 2018, 21:59:08 »
Moonsword, Moderator

Code: [Select]

Potemkin Class Assault Transport

Length – 1,508 meters
Displacement – 1,510,000 tons
Crew Complement – 445

Background

Developed by Riga Interstellar Shipyards, the design that would become the Potemkin came about because of lessons learned during the Reunification War.  In that huge conflict, JumpShips were freely targeted and if a JumpShip was loaded with DropShips at the time any personnel aboard were terribly vulnerable and losses of JumpShips and any troops aboard could critically affect a campaign on the ground, not just losing a battle, but perhaps imperilling an invasion of a world or system.

There wasn’t enough WarShips that could be left behind to carry troop ships and the burden of carrying DropShips loaded with tanks, troops, Mechs and supplies fell upon JumpShips which were priority targets during the Reunification War.
What was needed was a WarShip that could both carry large numbers of DropShips whilst being able to defend itself and its cargo.  In Wet navy terms, what was needed was something like a LS(D) or LS(H) or Landing Ship – Dock or Landing Ship Helicopter.  These large vessels would carry forces aboard and deploy them either by landing craft or VTOLs whilst having defensive weapons to protect themselves from missile attack.

R.I.S took this idea and ran with it coming up with a 750,000-ton vessel capable of carrying 10 DropShips and defending itself from hostile WarShips.  This made the SLDF Admiralty very happy, but they then suggested a few changes and sent it back to Riga.  This began 8 years of back and forth discussion and negotiations which saw the ship grow in size and capability (and design bloat was seemingly a habit of the SLDF) until it ballooned out to a 1,510,000-ton monster with 25 DropShip collars.  And, at 1,508 meters long, this was longer than the huge Farragut class battleship and even the McKenna class, the SLDF’s most powerful WarShip was shorter than the massive transport.
This huge ship was accepted for construction and was named after the Russian military Officer Grigory Potemkin, although its more famous for the battleship Potemkin and the mutiny aboard.

The Potemkin classes great size and unique shape meant that she not only required special yards to construct the huge ship, but current shipyards had to be altered to be able to take one for docking or repairs and this raised the cost considerably.  But, flush with funds following the Reunification War the Admiralty and SLDF could afford the huge price of these massive ships and 106 would be constructed with the first leaving the slips in 2611 and the last being completed in 2781. (Although this date makes little sense as this would have been built during the Amaris Civil War and actually two years after it, but its said in TRO2750 so *shrugs*)

Costing a ‘mere’ 22,646,353,000 C-bills equivalent currency the SLDF gets a LOT of ship for its bucks.  Protected by over 1,300 tons of Ferro Carbide armour the Potemkin’s armour is roughly in the battleship range and is only somewhat weaker than the Farrgut or McKenna classes.  Firepower wise the ship does not disappoint either.  Lacking naval autocannons, instead the Potemkin is armed with firepower that would easily see the class act as an Ersatz Battleship if needed.  Triple mounts for Heavy naval PPC’s formed the Potemkin’s main punch and gave her the firepower to reach out and severely damage a target.  Triple and quadruple mounts of 45cm lasers as well as launch tubes for Barracuda missiles rounded out the armament and made the Potemkin a very dangerous ship to challenge and more than capable of seeing off a cruiser or destroyer.
And, thanks to the advances in fire control, the PPC’s and lasers could all be brought to bear on fighters to obliterate or heavily damage them at long range, but this is the only armament the ship has, she has no other weapons for point defence and lacks any form of Anti-missile defences.  But this wasn’t seen as a drawback.  Such hugely valuable ships would never be unescorted and one could expect them to be screened by cruisers, destroyers and friendly fighters and DropShips, and anything trying to get close to a Potemkin would face veritable barrage of fire and large numbers of hostile fighters and DropShips.

Unlike a Battleship or any other major WarShip the Potemkin was not fitted for any fighters of her own, and only came with 10 Small craft in two small hangars, but with docking collars for 25 DropShips the majority of the ships hull was given over to cargo space, fuel tanks and quarters for her crew and the DropShip’s personnel.  In an effort to save money the SLDF didn’t include a Lithium Fusion battery and this didn’t cut into the ships cargo capacity of over 380,000 tons of onboard storage and quarters before you even count what could be carried on her DropShips.

The Potemkin could also act as a mobile refuelling port for her DropShips and had the largest capacity fuel tanks of any WarShip in SLDF service and was rated to take 25,000 tons of Hydrogen slush fuel.
As one might expect for a ship her size, the Potemkin is slow to accelerate and is quite sluggish, and the four huge Chatham 7500 engines are only capable of a mere 1.5g of sustained thrust at full roar.  But able to sustain 1g thrust for a long time the Potemkin is a comfortable ship to work and live aboard.

Internally the ship’s hull is dominated by a single 95 meter diameter grav-deck that runs most of the length of the primary hull, all safely hidden under the ships hull plating and we can assume that the cargo bays for the Potemkin are close to the docking areas for the DropShips and two, rather small 5 ship Small Craft bays.
Large areas of the hull can also be converted into barracks or cargo storage areas, and Mech’s, tanks and vehicles can be unloaded from the DropShips into the Potemkin’s cargo bays for storage and maintenance.

Although expensive to maintain and run the Potemkin class gave the SLDF good service and the huge troop carrying capacity of the ships was vital during the New Vandenburg and Periphery Uprisings and the redeployment of the SLDF to Taurian space before helping move the SLDF’s Armies and Corps back to the Hegemony to free it from the clutches of Amaris.

Like many SLDF WarShip classes the Potemkin suffered heavily, but still they faired better than other classes and roughly 30 of the ships would survive to see Terra liberated and the Hegemony freed.

Personal note

And here’s a bit of the lore that makes little sense to me, TRO 2750 says the class was then decommissioned, TRO 3057 says they were dismantled, and this is prior to Operation EXODUS.  Giving the remnants of the SLDF and Hegemony Government a mere 4 years to decommission these huge, badly needed craft or for some unknown reason scrap them.  Now perhaps to save money that was needed for rebuilding these ships could have been put into reserve round Terra, or used to try and get personnel and equipment to badly stricken worlds in the Hegemony but to scrap them when they are needed?  Insanity and honestly I think it’s a typo.

Also it says they were stopped when new escort craft made them not worth it, I don’t think we’ve ever had any idea of what these craft are, and really, because of their obscene carrying capacity, not much can really replace a Potemkin, the only problem is that they are bloody expensive to make and require special yards for refits and repairs, so you could re-word it as their costs being the reason why they were cancelled. But then again, the Hegemony is basically a post scarcity civilisation by this point and really money wouldn’t be an issue, but oh well!

End of note

General Kerensky wisely took as many active Potemkin class ships with him on Operation EXODUS as he could, where their massive DropShip and cargo capacity turned each Potemkin that accompanied the fleet into mobile towns and cities, and during the long months of Operation EXODUS the first children would be born aboard these mobile arcologies, along with dissent and the SLS Hermes took part in the Prinz Eugen Revolt, and her commander was one of the men executed following the quashing of the mutiny.  Two are known to have remained in the Inner Sphere, the CSV Vision of Truth and the Lyran LCS Nightwind which lead an audacious deep raid into Combine space to hit the Combine's capital, and here loaded with 25 assault and carrier DropShips the power of a Potemkin was shown as the ship quickly established orbital dominance over Luthien.

In Clan service, little changed save for the addition of a Lithium Fusion battery and slight alterations to the hull to allow for HarJel sealant to be included.
These massive ships would rarely carry their full loads of DropShips and some Clans even took to using the big ships as an Ersatz Battleship, but with their size and importance, never risked them in combat.

Design

Unique in design and role the Potemkin is a very potent ship no matter what way you look at it.  With 25 docking collars she’s super flexible.  If you went insane and loaded her up with 25 Titan’s she’d have 450 fighters, and if you used up a good chunk of the SLDF’s Lee Carrier variants you could have them pump out 1000 fighters.  You want to invade a planet?  Twenty five Overlords gives you 900 Mechs which is pretty much enough to subdue anything this side of a House Capital and you can carry any mix in between. And the fact that the SLDF had over a hundred of these things gives you some idea of the number of troops they could bring to bare if they REALLY wanted to ruin your day.  A Potemkin is a HUGE strategic advantage for the side with them, they can move huge numbers of troops, equipment and anything they need all safely tucked up within one ship.  And the ship isn’t bad either.

With an idealized broadside she can point 12 x Heavy Naval PPCs at you (in triple mounts) and seven NL-45s (one quad mount one triple) as well as a pair of Barracuda’s for plinking fighters or causing crits.  And thanks to her being built when she was, she’ll have bracket firing so a nice -2 or -3 to hit with her weapons against ships at long range and fighters.

This is all on a heavily armoured platform that’s better protected than any Battlecruiser or Heavy Cruiser and happily steps into battleship territory that comes within a fair range of the McKenna class in terms of protection (201 points on the broadside, 179 nose, 156 aft) whilst her 80 points of structural integrity make her suitably solid.  In a House fleet you could easily call the Potemkin a battleship and its quite understandable why the Clans used them as stand-in battleships although probably only as a show of force.

In a fight a Potemkin alone could probably see off anything short of a full on Battleship although with no internal fighters of her own she could be vulnerable to a fighter strike (although this is why you have a Titan or two aboard or a Lee CV for that role)  But the job of a Potemkin isn’t to fight hostile WarShips, her guns are a very big KEEP THE HELL AWAY sign and she’s too slow to really run from a fight as her engines don’t generate much thrust, leading to slow acceleration and limited rolling/turning, meaning you can quite easily out turn the ship.  No, their job isn’t to fight, its to carry massive amounts of Mechs, tanks and fighters to your world and make it their world.

But with their huge carrying capacity means that you’ve also got one VERY big basket with a lot of eggs in it and the loss of a Potemkin could be disastrous.  A single Potemkin could easily carry a full Division or a pair of Brigades and thus would no doubt be very heavily guarded whilst carrying a full complement of troops and their equipment.  So if you’re in a campaign and you’ve got a Potemkin, or are facing one or two, you might want to guard them or go after them.

Really the massive number of DropShips a Potemkin can carry is only really of use in a Campaign, in a stand up battle if you had all 25 DropShips aboard and launched them, then you’d need a small army of folks to control them all and that’s a tad impractical to say the least.    But if you was forced into a fight, then stay at long range and bracket fire as much as you can to try and wear down an opponent before they can get too close.  WarShip armour is quite weak (low numbers) and most WarShips can easily punch through each other’s armour in a few quick salvos at shorter range, so use your long range weapons to worry away at their armour and cause enough damage to knock out weapons or other systems.

General thoughts

I like the idea of the Potemkin, they really are a Tarawa or America class LHA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship )
just scaled up, where the Osprey’s are now DropShip’s and the armament has also grown in scale.  The original 2750 has them armed with big batteries of Medium Naval PPC’s (10 per section instead of the two triple mounts for Heavy Naval PPCs) and I’m not sure what’s better. Owing to the changes in weapons mounts (where you can only have a maximum of 70 damage from a cluster of weapons) you’d have to break up the Medium Naval PPC’s into two 5 gun mounts and this does the same damage as the triple Heavy naval PPC’s but is better for bracket firing as you’d get the full -4 to hit.

As the heat and tonnage are the same for the two batteries you could even head cannon it that the first Potemkins that entered production had the Medium naval PPC’s and then a later Flight II of them had heavy naval PPCs as it was felt that the bigger guns were better for supporting ground troops if needs be due to their greater damage and longer range.

It’s also a shame we didn’t see the original 750,000 ton design and with the huge cost of building the Potemkin class, having a smaller ship that’s cheaper to produce but can still happily carry a Regiment if needed would make sense as you’d not need to use the huge carrying capacity of a Potemkin all the time, making any trip where you’re not at capacity basically an expensive ‘in ballast’ run.

Art

The art is a mixbag. The original 2750 art



Looks pretty darn solid, a big rock solid ship that looks imposing and lumbering, yet quite sleek.

The TRO 3057 changes that asthetic, but it does give us a good idea of the placement of the Docking collars that helped give the nickname 'Corncob Cruiser'.



And its why I had Matt Plog re-do the Potemkin in this non-canon art which keeps the best bits of the 2750 design whilst altering it to make changes like having the docking collars all together in one area which, in my mind would make docking and launching/loading them a damn sight easier than having them pebble-dashed all over the hull.




As always, thoughts, comments and opinions are most welcome!
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #37 on: 17 October 2018, 01:07:17 »
Uhm... the OP is now at the end of the tread?
What happened there?
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #38 on: 17 October 2018, 01:31:08 »
Had to make a lil change here and there :)
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #39 on: 17 October 2018, 03:06:25 »
I actually thought it was being too negative about something.
I do like having actual opinions to argue about. Though, wouldn't it have been feasible to just edit the OP?
« Last Edit: 18 October 2018, 18:35:19 by UnLimiTeD »
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #40 on: 17 October 2018, 06:48:35 »
Locked for moderator review.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Bosefius

  • Will Moderate for Hugs
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6675
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #41 on: 18 October 2018, 15:37:45 »
This thread is unlocked. I'm sure we'll have no more references to what the Potemkin resembles.

Thank you
Catalyst Demo Agent #221, Huntington, WV

It's times like this I ask myself "What would Jabba the Hutt do?"

Atarlost

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 559
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #42 on: 18 October 2018, 17:30:38 »
This thread is unlocked. I'm sure we'll have no more references to what the Potemkin resembles.

Thank you

I would have called it spaceship shaped myself.  Form actually follows the functions of holding in an atmosphere and standing up to 1.5 gees. 

Sjhernan3060

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1816
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #43 on: 18 October 2018, 18:54:01 »
I actually like both designs. Just got my 3057 version in the mail and I was surprised that it was smaller than many warships fluff wise it’s supposed to be one the largest right?

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #44 on: 18 October 2018, 19:04:29 »
Scale isn't very much a thing with WarShip minis, especially the earlier ones. The best you're going to get is that the Potemkin will likely be longer than cruiser minis, even if only by a tiny amount.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25002
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #45 on: 19 October 2018, 05:37:46 »
I actually like both designs. Just got my 3057 version in the mail and I was surprised that it was smaller than many warships fluff wise it’s supposed to be one the largest right?

Like Weirdo said.  I started getting the miniatures when they first came out.  Potemkin came little bit later.  The earlier Warship minis were huge. Aegis, Fox, Avalon, Black Lion..those were larger than later ones like the Potemkin when they started doing fleet scale.   
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #46 on: 19 October 2018, 05:52:50 »
*slaps top* this bad boy can fit so many Dropships...

I have a love/hate relationship with the Potemkin. I love it because other ships win battles, this is what you use to win wars. I hate it because it kills threads. You always get someone talking about loading 25 of whatever their favorite DropShip class is into one (usually a carrier or PWS), and every single time, the post immediately before that was the last one worth reading. It is the physical incarnation of Godwin's Law.
I'm curious. Where do you draw the line w.r.t. BT universe-realistic dropship loads for the Potemkin?

I'm thinking, a full RCT and a couple of escort PWSs and ASF carriers... make the Potemkin the one-ship mega-LPD of Battletech

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10401
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #47 on: 19 October 2018, 07:33:54 »
This thread is unlocked. I'm sure we'll have no more references to what the Potemkin resembles.

Thank you

A corncob? Monsanto has gotten to you!
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Dragon Cat

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7832
  • Not Dead Until I Say So
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #48 on: 19 October 2018, 10:08:00 »
I think the Ghost Bears saw the Potential of the Potemkin when they merged it with their Leviathan project

Put together you've essentially created a moving defence line that can defend half a dozen systems all contained in one Warship it's the future of Warship use I think
My three main Alternate Timeline with Thanks fan-fiction threads are in the links below. I'm always open to suggestions or additions to be incorporated so if you feel you wish to add something feel free. There's non-canon units, equipment, people, events, erm... Solar Systems spread throughout so please enjoy

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,20515.0.html - Part 1

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,52013.0.html - Part 2

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,79196.0.html - Part 3

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28988
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #49 on: 19 October 2018, 12:14:12 »
One of the background things with the Clan Invasion that made little sense is that the Clans who owned Potemkins but did not invade SHOULD have gotten rich.

For instance the Scorpions somehow had 4 or 5 IIRC, though one was in pretty bad shape . . . yet they could (and should) have rented the ships out to the Invaders when approached.  Under Showers, I would only see the Wolves renting a ship to bring in supplies and replacements from the Homeworlds which would fit with Ulric's staging caches and combing conquered worlds to get whatever supplies they could use so only the irreplaceable stuff came down the Exodus Road.  After Ulric is elected ilKhan I could see the Falcons, Bears, and Cats trying to get Potemkins and whatever other JS the other Clans would rent.  Oddly enough, I would say the Sharks would NOT be doing so since Hawker was all about being a warrior and blocked his merchants.

This means the Clans gaining the most benefit from the Invasion but not actually Invaders would be the Ravens (b/c Potemkins & Aegis rentals are a nice racket), Scorpions, and maybe the Horses since they had 3 . . . the list I could find was not really complete.

What you do with the docking collars depends on the timeframe . . . for Kerensky's Exodus, IMO they make better people moves.  Attach 15-20 personnel transport dropships- infantry carriers, passenger liners, quarters heavy freighters- and of course one or four of those infantry carriers should be filled with MPs.  The remaining DS slots are for the largest freighters Kerensky had along at the start.  Those freighters are rotated out as their stocks of food, water & other essentials are used up.  Do that for say 25 of the Potemkins Kerensky took along while the remaining 5 or so carried the most valuable cargoes in his fleet operations- whatever supplies you did not want pilfered, damaged or kept out of the hands of any rioters/mutiny.  Those ships are 'garrisoned' by your best equipped most dedicated hard core troops- think special forces.  Because you want to keep anyone from sneaking over to seize the supplies.

For the Clan Invasion . . . during the preliminaries I would not put any ground force DS on my Potemkins.  Its too concentrated for what I would do in the Periphery campaign or even later waves.  Potemkins are going to be put to work, they would depart with the main fleets in June 3049, but as soon as they reached the Periphery holdings it would be time to unload and travel back to the Homeworlds for more supplies.  Any Behemoth the Clan owned would of course be assigned to the Potemkin, Mammoths, Jumbos, Mules and other cargo carriers as available- but the point would be to use the largest available to haul to the Periphery staging point.  Smaller freighters could move the cargo from the Periphery node with regular JS out to the frontline & units.  In the reverse, smaller freighters and regular JS could gather the supplies from a Clan's worlds & enclaves to deliver them to a node on the IS side of Clan space- probably somewhere that had a recharge station & cargo docks.  Until well after Tukayyid, my Clan's Potemkins will be travelling up and down the Exodus Road without stop except for any regular maintanence (or emergency) needs- though likely with a small escort ship after the warhships are mostly withdrawn from the OZs.  Especially escorted once the Sharks start trying to interdict supplies.

During the Civil War era in the IS?  The Potemkin is about as well armed as a heavy cruiser IMO and its deficiencies can be covered with the right dropships.  For those Clans without a Leviathan or Conqueror, it becomes a 'carrier' using its collars to carry Noruff, Miraborg, Mercer, Carriers and Titans for half to a third of its collars and it is assigned to carry/escort important cargo/units.

During Icestorm, one of the many mistakes Montrose made was leaving her biggest hauler sitting in the Periphery!  Sure it was useful to get your four or five galaxies to the Inner Sphere, but after that IT should have been the escort and had quite a few of the supply ships in the Coterie's collars.  CIH Coterie could have easily defeated the Jade Falcon Whirlwind class that captured their re-supply convoy.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #50 on: 19 October 2018, 20:34:00 »
*slaps top* this bad boy can fit so many Dropships...
I'm curious. Where do you draw the line w.r.t. BT universe-realistic dropship loads for the Potemkin?

I'm thinking, a full RCT and a couple of escort PWSs and ASF carriers... make the Potemkin the one-ship mega-LPD of Battletech

At least five different classes of ships, and a minimum of 30% of those ships should be noncombat designs. Bear in mind, I pulled those figures out of my butt at the spur of the moment.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #51 on: 20 October 2018, 02:23:48 »
At least five different classes of ships, and a minimum of 30% of those ships should be noncombat designs. Bear in mind, I pulled those figures out of my butt at the spur of the moment.
30% is hefty if by pure noncombatants you mean Mules and Mammoths

7 cargo droppers out of 25...

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #52 on: 20 October 2018, 02:29:07 »
Col Ward, very very good break down and ideas, and yeah the Clans were moronic not to bring supplies forwards and as you say, they could have easily used the Potemkins of Clans not involved.  But the Clans during REVIVAL had as good a grasp of logistics as the Germans did in WW2 if not waaaaay worse.  They were aware of Logistics being a word but that's about it.  Plus Leo Shower's plan for the Invasion seemed to be

1 - Scream.
2 - Leap!
3 - Zellbrigen.
4 - ?????
5 - Terra is ours!

The man seemingly had precisely zero grasp of strategy other than

a - Walk up to opponent.
b - Punch in face.

Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6124
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #53 on: 20 October 2018, 03:26:43 »
The Clans ran a successful invasion with a 6 month tail. Find another faction that has done the same. Heck. 4 - 6 (depending on how you count em) different Clans ran successful invasions with minimal sharing of resources for the best part of 20 years. How much is being bad at logistics and how much is it just hard?

30% is hefty if by pure noncombatants you mean Mules and Mammoths

7 cargo droppers out of 25...
Sounds perfectly reasonable. In a modern military it is something like 90% tail to 10% teeth. Have a look for some threads on how ASF burn through hydrogen. Big units have big hungers that need to be fed.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #54 on: 20 October 2018, 07:22:51 »
I don't have as many numbers to pull, but I think it depends on what you want to do.
Use a Potemkin to hold a range of systems, probably stretching some 60 LY?
You need limited cargo droppers - just enough to resupply the ship in a few passes from planets - but you'll have need for some ground transports as well as a few open spots, you never know what happens. That leaves a lot of room for space combat elements.
But, if your defenses are acceptable with plenty dropships, some groundforces, maybe even a smaller warship somewhere - or if you have to support and supply garrisons on otherwise unfriendly or uninhabitable worlds over a large stretch - I agree you'd need a lot of cargo droppers, to quickly resupply forces, or refill the ship.
In that case, the aerospace elements would probably just need to be strong enough to defend the ship against a squadron of dropships with fighter support, and carried groundtroops would either be quick reaction forces to reinforce an existing garrison in dire need or reserves that are rotated around.
Really, if you use this mainly as a supply base for an entire border, besides self defence it can easily double down on cargo. Even 12 cargo droppers wouldn't strike me as excessive in that case.

You certainly can't complain a Potemkin doesn't give you options.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #55 on: 20 October 2018, 07:38:01 »
30% is hefty if by pure noncombatants you mean Mules and Mammoths

7 cargo droppers out of 25...

I mean it. Taking a Potemkin means you're not planning to fight a battle, you're planning to win a war. Assume your theater commander rose through the ranks in the Star League Logistics Corps, and load accordingly.

My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #56 on: 20 October 2018, 08:32:33 »
Sounds perfectly reasonable. In a modern military it is something like 90% tail to 10% teeth. Have a look for some threads on how ASF burn through hydrogen. Big units have big hungers that need to be fed.
The TTR is more about manpower.

Good point about the ASFs and hydrogen.

I mean it. Taking a Potemkin means you're not planning to fight a battle, you're planning to win a war. Assume your theater commander rose through the ranks in the Star League Logistics Corps, and load accordingly.
Alrighty, 10 Behemoths coming up sah!

Hmm. Yeah sadly that appears to be the prosaic truth - a Potemkin is really a logistics beast more than anything else.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28988
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #57 on: 20 October 2018, 09:35:57 »
So for the upper end cargo droppers (Behemoth, Mammoth, Jumbo, Mule) I used the Jumbo as a 'median' cargo value for all 25 collars- mostly in my thought process for the Exodus, Clan Invasion & Op Icestorm.  For the ability to carry 25 DS, I think it came to something like 280kt of cargo carried (basically 25 Jumbos) . . . which interestingly enough, is about 100kt less than the Potemkin's actual cargo space.  It makes me think there was a SLDF dropper between the Behemoth and Mammoth, maybe before their introduction to use the collars on the warship fully . . . or even before the Potemkin's intro of 2611.

One other thing to consider when moving something with the Potemkin- its a BIG point failure source.  Military rules for dealing with the Demon Murphy says that if you absolutely need something for a mission, whatever its traveling on will not get it to the destination.  The solution to this is crossloading . . . which means when possible you split mission critical equipment or personnel between multiple transports- you have two bomb experts to get to a LZ, each one flys on a different VTOL into the LZ.  Convoy through the desert?  You split the water tanks between several vehicles.

The Potemkin invites the operations/logistics planner to ignore this principle because its so MANY collars, though for the Star League this was probably overcome by having more Potemkins, Monoliths, and Leviathans (no matter how 'bad' they were for security) when moving whole armies.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #58 on: 20 October 2018, 12:17:25 »
Using a Potemkin as a huge and mobile strategic resource hub makes sense and whilst they do represent a huge point of failure for a campaign if one was lost, you can bet that any Potemkin deployed would be very heavily guarded purely for that reason.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28988
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #59 on: 20 October 2018, 12:49:21 »
Its not about guarding explicitly . . . what happens if the Potemkin misjumps?  What if its sail fails to deploy b/c a jammed line motor that delays its jumping on schedule for operational time table- how hard would it be to shift mission critical cargo DS to other collars to make the time table?  Or a problem with the jump core- leaks in the helium reservoirs, a whatsit breaking, a virus getting into the nav computer, etc.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7180
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #60 on: 20 October 2018, 12:58:58 »
Its not about guarding explicitly . . . what happens if the Potemkin misjumps?  What if its sail fails to deploy b/c a jammed line motor that delays its jumping on schedule for operational time table- how hard would it be to shift mission critical cargo DS to other collars to make the time table?  Or a problem with the jump core- leaks in the helium reservoirs, a whatsit breaking, a virus getting into the nav computer, etc.
The Potemkin has so much cargo that it could be the entire operation, so transferring all that cargo would be difficult/impossible.
But anyway BT could use some proper military Cargo transports (50kt, heavy armor & artillery).
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #61 on: 20 October 2018, 17:12:29 »
If I'd base a campaign around a flying supply train, I'd probably just add the necessary combat forces and minimum supporting assets and send them off.
Whether those combat forces are a battleship combat group or an escort destroyer and 30 troopships.
And if you're the SLDF and send off five of those groups, I guess we've moved way past the problem.  xp
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10153
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #62 on: 29 October 2018, 17:13:31 »
Im a huge fan of this Cargo Warship. Loaded with its dropships and cargo of a full Division I wouldn't put it as a front line Warship. I would really put a damper on the invasion if a bad guy popped a Potemkin loaded with 25 Dropships, a 1000 mechs and who knows how many support troops.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6124
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #63 on: 30 October 2018, 01:29:18 »
I would rather run cargo Dropships. Put the Potemkin on a scheduled run. Do internal cargo transfers during charging breaks. Just keep moving.

Purely military operations require more flexibility than a single ship offers. Especially in the battleship heavy SL era.

gyedid

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2581
  • Always brighter on the other side of the mirror.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #64 on: 30 October 2018, 02:58:13 »
The Potemkin also answers why the Star League never developed a dedicated carrier Warship, like the New Syrtis or the Thera.  Load one up with fully-loaded Titans--or later, Lees--and you have an aerospace contingent that would make even a Thera captain break out in cold sweats.

cheers,

Gabe
So, now I'm imagining people boxing up Overlords for loading as cargo.  "Nope, totally not a DropShip.  Everyone knows you can't fit a DropShip in a WarShip!  It's...a ten thousand ton box of marshmallows!  Yeah.  For the Heavy Guards big annual smores party."
--Arkansas Warrior, on the possibility of carrying Dropships as cargo in Warship cargo bays.

TERRAN SUPREMACY DEFENSE FORCE.  For when you want to send the SLDF, but couldn't afford the whole kit and kaboodle.

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7909
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #65 on: 30 October 2018, 03:13:11 »
The Potemkin also answers why the Star League never developed a dedicated carrier Warship, like the New Syrtis or the Thera.  Load one up with fully-loaded Titans--or later, Lees--and you have an aerospace contingent that would make even a Thera captain break out in cold sweats.

There's a point where the number of fighters becomes impractical. And I would argue it's well before you can fully load a Potemkin with them. All those birds would need to be fed. And concentrating them all in one place means they aren't handling operations all the other places they could be.

And the fleet the Potemkin is a part of so badly outnumbers and out classes every single opponent it could face, as in all of them, at once, that there's no situation where you're going to find yourself needing to concentrate all of those ships in one place.

A better argument against the Star League needing large carriers is that they had nearly three hundred McKennas, each carrying nearly a regiment of fighters all by themselves.

The one time anything close to that has ever happened was the raid on Luthien during the first succession war, and that was a very special circumstance by a navy that didn't have the numbers the SLDF had. And even they mixed the carriers with assault ships.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #66 on: 30 October 2018, 03:44:47 »

All those birds would need to be fed. And concentrating them all in one place means they aren't handling operations all the other places they could be.

And the Potemkin is one ship that can indeed feed all those birds, given a couple of Mammoths.

Anyway in the SLDF Navy it seems it is the Titans who are the key ASF carriers. Potemkin gives them jump legs and go juice, and one other thing: the ability to conduct enduring operations not tied down to zenith, nadir or Lagrange points.

That's something that just occurred to me. A Potemkin can shift position (relatively) fast and come at you from vectors you don't expect. That makes a significant tactical difference - you're the defender, and you're concentrating your CAP on the system poles cuz that's where Jumpship-borne invaders drop in. You even seed the Lagrange points with tripwire forces or recon sats cause you're smart, right?

And indeed one day the zenith point picket goes dark, after squawking word of an incoming assault fleet. You align your defenders or send a response force out that way... but then the Potemkin-borne attack force comes screaming in from like ninety degrees off-bore, and your big guns are all on the wrong intercept vector!

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #67 on: 30 October 2018, 05:55:53 »
On a ship with a jump battery, I could see that, but the potemkin can't change place faster than just the dropships - could just send them around, no?
Or am I missing something here?
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25002
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #68 on: 30 October 2018, 07:04:13 »
One of the oddest ruling I thought was when it was changed that Dropship's can't remain docked to the parent warship while the Warship is using it's main engines. 
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3637
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #69 on: 30 October 2018, 08:23:48 »
One of the oddest ruling I thought was when it was changed that Dropship's can't remain docked to the parent warship while the Warship is using it's main engines.

That makes sense to me though.  The docking collars are an extension of a fragile KF field that can be taken offline with a critical hit.  Even battletech's near magic engineering can't take the shear force of a massive dropship handing on from a single point of attachment.  If you want internally carried vessels you need to look back at the Dropshuttles of the early Age of Exploration.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #70 on: 30 October 2018, 08:37:28 »
One of the oddest ruling I thought was when it was changed that Dropship's can't remain docked to the parent warship while the Warship is using it's main engines.

If you ever figure out how to attach the Empire State Building sideways to the Burj Dubai's 50th floor, any love life issues you may are also solved. Every structural engineer in existence is going to want your babies, so finding at least one that suits your fancy should be child's play compared to the design miracle you just pulled off.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #71 on: 30 October 2018, 09:24:22 »
Couldn't you sync the dropships engines with the Warship, though? Of course, assuming a dropper that doesn't attach at the rear.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #72 on: 30 October 2018, 09:28:30 »
Art almost always shows them docking at the rear, occasionally at the nose.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #73 on: 30 October 2018, 13:38:55 »
One of the oddest ruling I thought was when it was changed that Dropship's can't remain docked to the parent warship while the Warship is using it's main engines.
Damn it, I didn't know about that...

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #74 on: 30 October 2018, 14:10:04 »
Makes sense, given the stresses involved. Imagine you have awesome gripping shoes that will stick to any surface. Now imagine trying to stand straight while sticking out 90° from a wall. Imagine the stress on your ankles and legs, and gain new respect for Spider-Man.

Now imagine that you weigh four thousand tons, and think about the stresses on your ankles, your shoes, and the building you're on. And now realize that the gravity can shift from 1G to 0G to up to 4G at a moment's notice with similar rotational forces as your building(aka the WarShip) maneuvers through space.

If you haven't abandoned that DropShip in favor of the nearest escape pod(don't go for the WarShip, it's dumb enough to maneuver in this situation) by now, you are indisputably suicidal.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25002
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #75 on: 30 October 2018, 21:26:37 »
Potemkins converted to ArcShips properly have it the hardest.  They highlighted in fiction what happens when you try use interplanetary drives while you got dropships attached.  Hull breeches every where, but ship was downgraded to 1/2 speed in the Hunters of the Deep MWDA novel.   I'm not sure that issue is highlighted in any rules i know of. I was told in game, you simply can't.

I wish they could have, since DropShips were so darn vulnerable capital weapons fire.  I kept most my dropships attached until the last moment during the Trial of Possession for the future Rasalhague.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12024
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #76 on: 31 October 2018, 00:33:21 »
i would assume that the 1/10th g or less station keeping thrust is an exception to the "dropships can't stay docked under thrust" rule, because we have lots of examples of dropships remaining docked while the jumpship/warship is station keeping.

if so, Arcships might well limit their in system transits (if any) to 1/10th g or less. given the Potemkin's endurance it isn't like they'd need to go faster most of the time, and if they are caught in battle.. well the perma-docked dropships are gonna get wrecked anyway from enemy fire.

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7909
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #77 on: 31 October 2018, 00:36:38 »
And the Potemkin is one ship that can indeed feed all those birds, given a couple of Mammoths.

If the Potemkin doesn't have the space to supply them, two mammoths aren't going to help.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

gyedid

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2581
  • Always brighter on the other side of the mirror.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #78 on: 31 October 2018, 06:56:12 »
Makes sense, given the stresses involved. Imagine you have awesome gripping shoes that will stick to any surface. Now imagine trying to stand straight while sticking out 90° from a wall. Imagine the stress on your ankles and legs, and gain new respect for Spider-Man.

Now imagine that you weigh four thousand tons, and think about the stresses on your ankles, your shoes, and the building you're on. And now realize that the gravity can shift from 1G to 0G to up to 4G at a moment's notice with similar rotational forces as your building(aka the WarShip) maneuvers through space.

If you haven't abandoned that DropShip in favor of the nearest escape pod(don't go for the WarShip, it's dumb enough to maneuver in this situation) by now, you are indisputably suicidal.

So, when a fully-loaded Potemkin jumps into a system with the goal of a planetary invasion, ALL the Dropships have to undock, and then they all (Potemkin + Dropship complement) burn toward the target world?

cheers,

Gabe
So, now I'm imagining people boxing up Overlords for loading as cargo.  "Nope, totally not a DropShip.  Everyone knows you can't fit a DropShip in a WarShip!  It's...a ten thousand ton box of marshmallows!  Yeah.  For the Heavy Guards big annual smores party."
--Arkansas Warrior, on the possibility of carrying Dropships as cargo in Warship cargo bays.

TERRAN SUPREMACY DEFENSE FORCE.  For when you want to send the SLDF, but couldn't afford the whole kit and kaboodle.

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #79 on: 31 October 2018, 08:49:14 »
So, when a fully-loaded Potemkin jumps into a system with the goal of a planetary invasion, ALL the Dropships have to undock, and then they all (Potemkin + Dropship complement) burn toward the target world?

cheers,

Gabe

Yep, same with any escorting WarShips and the like they all detach and begin their burn in system. 
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40822
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #80 on: 31 October 2018, 11:07:04 »
Correct. Docking collars are for carrying a DropShip through hyperspace and for transferring cargo. That's pretty much it.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13072
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #81 on: 16 November 2018, 23:57:06 »
i would assume that the 1/10th g or less station keeping thrust is an exception to the "dropships can't stay docked under thrust" rule, because we have lots of examples of dropships remaining docked while the jumpship/warship is station keeping.

if so, Arcships might well limit their in system transits (if any) to 1/10th g or less. given the Potemkin's endurance it isn't like they'd need to go faster most of the time, and if they are caught in battle.. well the perma-docked dropships are gonna get wrecked anyway from enemy fire.

As long as the Station Keeping drive is used for avoiding a star's gravity (essentially hovering) as intended then I'd agree.

But even using it to maneuver even at 1/10 seems like it might get old & cause stress over time.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

gyedid

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2581
  • Always brighter on the other side of the mirror.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #82 on: 02 December 2018, 23:14:23 »
Are the Potemkin's NPPC batteries properly positioned to supply ortillery?

cheers,

Gabe
So, now I'm imagining people boxing up Overlords for loading as cargo.  "Nope, totally not a DropShip.  Everyone knows you can't fit a DropShip in a WarShip!  It's...a ten thousand ton box of marshmallows!  Yeah.  For the Heavy Guards big annual smores party."
--Arkansas Warrior, on the possibility of carrying Dropships as cargo in Warship cargo bays.

TERRAN SUPREMACY DEFENSE FORCE.  For when you want to send the SLDF, but couldn't afford the whole kit and kaboodle.

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #83 on: 03 December 2018, 21:46:09 »
Is it bad I legitimately do not remember starting this thread?

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25002
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #84 on: 03 December 2018, 23:01:31 »
I was thinking, Potemkin would be awesome way for Santa to delivery his payload of toys.  ;D
« Last Edit: 04 December 2018, 14:18:20 by Wrangler »
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

The_Livewire

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 731
    • The Livewire's Battletech Blog
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #85 on: 04 December 2018, 12:25:28 »
I was thinking, Potemkin would be awesome way for Santa to delivery his payload toys.  ;D

Well, Santa got Billy that Mech he wanted..
Really? Where is it?
Arriving soon at 32m/s2
Alamo - When you care enough to send the very best.

And Purifiers *still* suck.

Now doing battletech blogging
https://livewire2112.blogspot.com/search/label/Battletech

R.Tempest

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 197
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #86 on: 04 December 2018, 22:17:50 »
 :)) Now I'm picturing a Potemkin painted as robot Santa from Futurama (SLS Saint Nicholas)

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #87 on: 05 December 2018, 08:49:32 »
Is it bad I legitimately do not remember starting this thread?
Chances are, you didn't. 8)
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #88 on: 05 December 2018, 14:57:49 »
Chances are, you didn't. 8)
Considering I'm the first post and the thread says I made it... I certainly did.

Regardless, I just realized that a Potemkin would also be the SLDF's gift to major Humanitarian relief efforts. You could potentially pack a LOT of rescue ships and whatnot on this thing. Makes me wonder if the Star League ever figured out that would be a great use for one outside of wartime.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6124
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #89 on: 05 December 2018, 18:03:19 »
Short answer. Yes.

I class military ships as Warships and Peace ships. For example I consider a USN style super carrier as a Peace ship. Absolutely brilliant for the low intensity/humanitarian stuff that we have been doing for the last 70 years, but likely to have an exciting time in WW3.
Peace ships win the peace. And peace is what military ships spend 99% of the time doing.

With that in mind you could argue that the SLDF is built on Peace Ships.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #90 on: 05 December 2018, 19:39:27 »
...
Nah, I'm rather certain the first post just disappeared.

What does a Potemkin bring to the table that a few jumpships with droppers couldn't accomplish?
It's not fast reaction with low speed and no battery...
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7909
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #91 on: 05 December 2018, 19:48:15 »
It takes more than a "few" typical jumpships to match the lift capacity of a Potemkin (either the twenty five collars or the hundreds of thousands of tons of internal cargo space).

Aside from that... shoot back?
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #92 on: 05 December 2018, 22:06:27 »
Nah, I'm rather certain the first post just disappeared.
In that case...

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #93 on: 09 December 2018, 07:35:47 »
The main thread is here :)

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63210.msg1453310#msg1453310

I made some jokes about the art of the 3057 Potemkin and got rightfully rapped across the knuckles for them  :)
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #94 on: 09 December 2018, 17:15:32 »
A pity, really, but such is life.

Given we were already talking about using the Potemkin for disaster relief, how much benefit can "shooting back" be?
I can't think of too many natural disasters that could be mitigated by naval grade PPCs, of the op of my head.
Though I suppose the cargo space is agreeable.
An argument that just came to me, though, is availability.
Given that the troop moving needs in BT, what with the ridiculously small armies, won't tax the fleet at all, a Potemkin with a half dozen droppers can probably depart to wherever she's needed within a few hours. However long it takes to load the necessary supplies, really. Or faster, if they are loaded in another system while spooling up for the next jump.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #95 on: 09 December 2018, 19:22:30 »
A pity, really, but such is life.

Given we were already talking about using the Potemkin for disaster relief, how much benefit can "shooting back" be?
I can't think of too many natural disasters that could be mitigated by naval grade PPCs, of the op of my head.
Though I suppose the cargo space is agreeable.
An argument that just came to me, though, is availability.
Given that the troop moving needs in BT, what with the ridiculously small armies, won't tax the fleet at all, a Potemkin with a half dozen droppers can probably depart to wherever she's needed within a few hours. However long it takes to load the necessary supplies, really. Or faster, if they are loaded in another system while spooling up for the next jump.
The Potemkin would be able to carry more disaster relief dropships than literally any platform in existence that I know of off the top of my head. That's why it would be a decent choice for it. Massive city with billions of people just got hit with storms the planet has never seen before, leaving said untold masses homeless or helpless? Send the Potemkin. Planet with shipped-in food just lost access? Send in foreign food aid with dropship distribution centers. Natural disaster/local war caused the planet's condition to deteriorate past livable levels in a hurry? Send the Potemkin or three to assist with rapid evac.

That's what the draw, rescue wise, is; It's not that the Potemkin can kill things, it's the sheer potential of it to basically be a one-warship docking station for a veritable army of relief ships and personnel. Sure, you *could* send a small of, say, a jumpship and a few dropships, but depending, that might not be enough, or at least not enough, not fast enough.
« Last Edit: 09 December 2018, 19:25:47 by Caedis Animus »

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #96 on: 09 December 2018, 19:53:47 »
That said, it would have been neat to have a fast version.
Say, 3/5 with an LF battery, at a cost in cargo and collars.
Because if you really need to help fast, the potemkin sure takes its time.
It will be quick to mobilize, though, as said.
I think for a humanitarian mission such as that, I'd probably send a battery equipped ship, if available, with the potemkin following with the main relief effort, and phone home any special needs discovered, then ship that material in with regular jumpships.

same for a variety of jobs, really, I doubt any operation besides the exodus really justifies multiples.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13233
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #97 on: 11 January 2019, 16:56:10 »
With that in mind you could argue that the SLDF is built on Peace Ships.
Sadly some of them have been better classed as a Peace of Ship.  At least the Potemkin's a good one.

That said, it would have been neat to have a fast version.
Say, 3/5 with an LF battery, at a cost in cargo and collars.
Because if you really need to help fast, the potemkin sure takes its time.
It will be quick to mobilize, though, as said.
I disagree on speeding up the Potemkin itself, since it can't travel with DropShips attached - and those droppers are very likely going faster than your 3/5 increased speed version.  If the Potemkin itself needs to get to the planet that fast, versus its DS fleet, then it's best served with a pirate point and cutting off the transit time that way.
« Last Edit: 11 January 2019, 16:58:19 by ANS Kamas P81 »
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25002
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #98 on: 11 January 2019, 20:46:30 »
I disagree on speeding up the Potemkin itself, since it can't travel with DropShips attached - and those droppers are very likely going faster than your 3/5 increased speed version.  If the Potemkin itself needs to get to the planet that fast, versus its DS fleet, then it's best served with a pirate point and cutting off the transit time that way.
Once apon a time, dropships were able to travel while docked. The rule itself if i'm not mistaken was introduced with the Aerotech Revised rules set came out. 

"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Sjhernan3060

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1816
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #99 on: 12 April 2019, 21:24:19 »
So I have recently become a fan of fire mandrill kindraa mick kreese. They control two warships one of which is a Potemkin the other is a Lola iii. I am curious how you all would think the Potemkin would be used? A heavily armed hauler of raw materials and goods?

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28988
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Warship Discussion: Potemkin class
« Reply #100 on: 13 April 2019, 01:34:46 »
I suggest reading the topic and doing the search for the other one about the use in Revival.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."