Construction of large naval vessels ... useless?

[dirty harry]

I want the opion of those who tried the same...

First of all i wanted to install Cruise Missiles into something else away from dropships. The extreme weight of the starter and the ridicolous weight of the ammo (is this a Cruise Missile or an ICBM?) left only few choices: mobile structures or a large naval vessel. I opted for a ship, but after several calculations i came to one conclusion:

It is useless to build a large naval vessel.

There are three points neglecting a ship as starter base.
1. Most of them are insanly large. Everything with more than 30.000 tons measuring half the size of a hexmaps length. With a depth of 3 hexes banning it from any common map. Why even think about such a monstrosity?  ???
If you think about smaller ships, you are outwhiped by two other factors.
2. Armor plating. You are forced to armor six locations and a lot of turrets. But you can't mount real armor on that thing let alone the hullbreach rules and problems. A 100 ton ship planned as combat vehicle can mount as much armor as a 6000 ton ship and isn't forced to locate that amount to the same number of locations.  ???
3. The biggest handicap is the limitation of item slots. As a large naval vessel has to use the full number of slots a weapon system needs (it is still considered a Support Vehicle, not a Combat Vehicle although it was planned to fight something...), it fills its slot within no time. A single Cruise Missile 120 launcher aboard a 10.000 ton ship and you will have close to no secondary weapons. That IS ridicolous.  [tickedoff]

After all i am not astonished that the Meabh Cruiser is more like a speedboat (a 10.000 ton heavy cruiser but as fast as a Locust - while sliting the seas...) or the Jormungand with 60.000 tons is traveling at an incredible 6/9. Both constructions are forced to use insanly powerful engines to blow off some weight otherwise used for storage rooms (thereby reducing them to armed and armored frighters...).

In my opinion the slot limitations are the biggest handicap, but subpar armor follows directly and the size problems will keep those ships most of the time so far away from boardfights, they don't need to be considered.

So, are there any other designers that have tried to develop a large naval vessel and faced the same problems? And how do they fixed that problem?
I am just curious...

[Fireangel]

It is useless to build a large naval vessel.

Not really. Depends on what you want the design to do and how much tonnage you are willing to put into the design.

There are three points neglecting a ship as starter base.
1. Most of them are insanly large. Everything with more than 30.000 tons measuring half the size of a hexmaps length. With a depth of 3 hexes banning it from any common map. Why even think about such a monstrosity?  ???

Because not all battles take place on convenient, readily available hexmaps; the kinds of battles where Large Naval Support Vessels shine are open seas with plenty of range to exploit. Such battles are often strategic and highly complex in nature, shining when additional elements are added in (such a a simultaneous aero battle).

If you think about smaller ships, you are outwhiped by two other factors.
2. Armor plating. You are forced to armor six locations and a lot of turrets. But you can't mount real armor on that thing let alone the hullbreach rules and problems. A 100 ton ship planned as combat vehicle can mount as much armor as a 6000 ton ship and isn't forced to locate that amount to the same number of locations.  ???

Don't forget that this is BATTLETECH; home of the 500kg Ma Deuce MG. Sheer tonnage is just a relative issue. Hull breach rules apply only to submerged units (not on the surface, so a light MG can't sink a Luftenberg). Large support vehicles CAN use "real armour"; it's called BAR/10 and is just as effective as Standard BT armour in resisting penetration.

The amount of armour that can be bolted on to a large NSV can be staggering on the ground combat scale; HUNDREDS of points of armour per location. Considering the kind of opposition large NSV's face (generally standard-scale [medium] vehicles brought in by an invading force),this amount of armour is plenty.

3. The biggest handicap is the limitation of item slots. As a large naval vessel has to use the full number of slots a weapon system needs (it is still considered a Support Vehicle, not a Combat Vehicle although it was planned to fight something...), it fills its slot within no time. A single Cruise Missile 120 launcher aboard a 10.000 ton ship and you will have close to no secondary weapons. That IS ridicolous.  [tickedoff]

Then use a larger ship... or a smaller cruise missile.  8)

Need more secondary weapons? A 10kt NSV uses template C (5 hexes long), so why not put some infantry on deck? 

Cruise Missiles will only be mounted on "local" ships that need never be taken off-world, so any size constraints are based on the local manufacturing capability. Smaller ships carry smaller missiles, larger ships carry larger missiles.

After all i am not astonished that the Meabh Cruiser is more like a speedboat (a 10.000 ton heavy cruiser but as fast as a Locust - while sliting the seas...) or the Jormungand with 60.000 tons is traveling at an incredible 6/9. Both constructions are forced to use insanly powerful engines to blow off some weight otherwise used for storage rooms (thereby reducing them to armed and armored frighters...).

The thing is that the military realities of BT differ from those in the real world and vehicle designs must follow suit. Once fusion-powered large NSV's pushed the envelope of speed, ICE versions needed to follow suit or be rendered obsolete; most opposition is either aerospace or hovercraft / fast boats.

Don't forget that form follows function; in-universe designers are not designing ships for combat only; if a ship design's mission parameters requires heavy firepower and large cargo capacity (for fuel, on-station supplies, replacement or whatever), then a larger ship will be designed. You'd be stunned by the amount of cargo space in present-day warships, used for supplies and parts.

In my opinion the slot limitations are the biggest handicap, but subpar armor follows directly and the size problems will keep those ships most of the time so far away from boardfights, they don't need to be considered.

Slot limitations can be a problem, but good design and compromises can overcome that. Armour need not be subpar; a hundred points of BAR/10 per facing will give a 'mechjock fits.

Map selection is irrelevant; these units are not casually selected for pick up games; when a blue water warship shows up it is the star of the show and it can be safely assumed that the appropriate maps have been secured (usually the blank side of the standard ones, other hexagonal sheets or terrain-based games.

So, are there any other designers that have tried to develop a large naval vessel and faced the same problems? And how do they fixed that problem?
I am just curious...

The problems you cite are either non-existent or minor quibbles. Whenever I find myself critically short on slots I re-evaluate the design OR I simply make it larger.

For example; in your case (10kt NSV with a Cruise Missile/120), I'd definitely downgrade the missile to something smaller. If I'm still short, I'd consider a larger design; 12kt first (to maintain the C template) and then (if size is critical) a higher tech base. I'd also look into what I can remove from the design.

[Ruger]

Please remember that all fan created designs are to be posted only in the appropriate fan design board of these forums.

Please see the following link for the design (and rest of the message that contained the design) that was previously posted in this thread:

http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,4122.0.html

Thank you,

Ruger

[rlbell]

The thing is that the military realities of BT differ from those in the real world and vehicle designs must follow suit. Once fusion-powered large NSV's pushed the envelope of speed, ICE versions needed to follow suit or be rendered obsolete; most opposition is either aerospace or hovercraft / fast boats.

The design rules are broken for large naval vessels.  These vessels are the size of dropships.  Dropship fusion engines are much smaller than the Jormungand's 30,000t fusion engine, yet they produce a thousand times the output. A flank speed of 9 (50knots), for a 60,000t vessel is probably doable with an oil fired steam plant of less than 30,000t.  A container ship that could cruise at 50knots was designed, but not enough trans-Atlantic container traffic existed to justify the cost, it would have had seven ICE's (large gas turbines)

[Challenger]

Its worth remembering that the dropships fusion plant is the engine.

A surface ships fusion plant is the electrical generator, you need an electric motor to drive the propellers in a similar set up to the Turbo Electric systems used in WWI era US Battleships.  They were significantly heavier than straight steam turbines IIRC.


Do you have a link to that cargo ships?  In particular it would be interesting to see the estimated horse power needed.  It is a quirk of naval engineering that increasing a ships speed by a few knots can require an entirely unreasonable increase in horse power.

Challenger

[cray]

There are three points neglecting a ship as starter base.
1. Most of them are insanly large. Everything with more than 30.000 tons measuring half the size of a hexmaps length. With a depth of 3 hexes banning it from any common map. Why even think about such a monstrosity?  ???

Because not every game looks at things from a board game perspective. If I was writing a campaign for a water-rich, moderately industrialized world, I'd certainly think about it giving it a few submersible carriers. A mobile, underwater base has a lot to recommend it compared to a stationary military base.

As for "monstrosity," a 30,000-ton ship would get lost in the cargo hold or oil tanks of a modern, larger container ship or ULCC. The Knock Nevis had a displacement of just under 650,000 tons.

2. Armor plating. You are forced to armor six locations and a lot of turrets. But you can't mount real armor on that thing let alone the hullbreach rules and problems. A 100 ton ship planned as combat vehicle can mount as much armor as a 6000 ton ship and isn't forced to locate that amount to the same number of locations.  ???

So build a 60,000-ton ship.

After all i am not astonished that the Meabh Cruiser is more like a speedboat (a 10.000 ton heavy cruiser but as fast as a Locust - while sliting the seas...) or the Jormungand with 60.000 tons is traveling at an incredible 6/9. Both constructions are forced to use insanly powerful engines to blow off some weight otherwise used for storage rooms (thereby reducing them to armed and armored frighters...).

In reality, watercraft often have very poor military payload fractions, rarely more than a few percent of the ship's weight. There's nothing new or unusual about that.

3. The biggest handicap is the limitation of item slots. As a large naval vessel has to use the full number of slots a weapon system needs (it is still considered a Support Vehicle, not a Combat Vehicle although it was planned to fight something...), it fills its slot within no time. A single Cruise Missile 120 launcher aboard a 10.000 ton ship and you will have close to no secondary weapons. That IS ridicolous.  [tickedoff]

So build a larger ship. A cruise missile-120 is firing a very large missile; it could easily monopolize the elbowroom available for guns on a medium destroyer.

Horror at small gains for large increases in tonnage are common in warship design. Per Friedman's, "U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History," US Navy officers asked to review the near-final Montana-class battleship design (65,000 tons) were appalled to see that only 3 main guns had been added compared to the Montana's 45,000-ton Iowa predecessor. Secondary armament quantity did not change (20x 5" guns, though the 5" models differed).

In my opinion the slot limitations are the biggest handicap, but subpar armor follows directly and the size problems will keep those ships most of the time so far away from boardfights, they don't need to be considered.

Even if they're offboard, they need to be considered when their fighters, 'Mechs, and artillery are destroying your conventional units.

[rlbell]

Its worth remembering that the dropships fusion plant is the engine.

A surface ships fusion plant is the electrical generator, you need an electric motor to drive the propellers in a similar set up to the Turbo Electric systems used in WWI era US Battleships.  They were significantly heavier than straight steam turbines IIRC.


Do you have a link to that cargo ships?  In particular it would be interesting to see the estimated horse power needed.  It is a quirk of naval engineering that increasing a ships speed by a few knots can require an entirely unreasonable increase in horse power.

Challenger

The fusion reactor for a leopard class DS masses less than the leopard's 1800t and has a power output of some multiple of 10^12 watts.  Why is the Jormungand's engineering plant over 30,000t for a relatively paltry couple of gigawatts?

I managed to find them: FastShip Atlantic.  They are not as big, nor as fast, as I thought.  They are planned to carry 10,000 tons of cargo at 38 knots (44mph, ~69km/h, or just under 7mp) with an installed plant of just under 300,000 shp.  They put that power as equivalent to the takeoff power of two Boeing 747's.  As their website indicates five engines, the average power is 60,000 hp each, or 45Mw.  A 45Mw gas turbogenerator set (minus air filter housing and exhaust stack) is only 25t, including the generator, so five are only 125t (taking the Westinghouse W251 Econopac as an example [50,000lbs, 50Mw]).

If you increase the length, the needed hp/ton for high speed goes down.  The Italians had a mania for 10,000t treaty cruisers that hit 42knots, and it took them 120,000 shp to do it.  The Iowa class BB is not as fast, but still gets 34knots with only twice as much power for a much larger displacement.

[dirty harry]

Because not every game looks at things from a board game perspective. If I was writing a campaign for a water-rich, moderately industrialized world, I'd certainly think about it giving it a few submersible carriers. A mobile, underwater base has a lot to recommend it compared to a stationary military base.

As for "monstrosity," a 30,000-ton ship would get lost in the cargo hold or oil tanks of a modern, larger container ship or ULCC. The Knock Nevis had a displacement of just under 650,000 tons.

What does a Game Template has to do with a supertanker? Nothing. It does not affect its floatation or anything if it weighs 30.000 tons or 21 times more if it is for game stats. After all a 30,000 ton ship will measure monstrous 270 meter in length aka 9 Hexes in Battletech reducing it to a simple proxy far off of any coast. And to make matters worth, a 12.001 ton ship will be designated template D which isn't really smaller, leaving it with the same problems as the bigger one but with much inferior protection against anything.

So, if i want a ship which could possible close to the shore line and give enemy mech and tank troops just a slight chance of encountering it, i have to use a bare backside or a selfmade map or drop the idea entirely because of insane measures and or rule restrictions.

So build a 60,000-ton ship.

 ??? And what do people do who dislike this 'bigger is better' mentality? I for myself dislike this type of mindset.

In reality, watercraft often have very poor military payload fractions, rarely more than a few percent of the ship's weight. There's nothing new or unusual about that.

Just to repeat myself: It is not the tonnage that troubles the construction. There is plenty of free weight left. It is the space limitation that stops any usage of space consuming large weapon systems such as artillery or even the totally extreme Cruise Missiles (up to 120 slots for a single starter!!!). The engine, as it doesn't need any of those free slots, is the only possibility aside from chassis modifications to burn some of the unused weight otherwise declared as storage. 6/9 or even worse 8/12 is an effect not the cause of those ships (or my construction) problems.

In my opinion the slot limitations are the biggest handicap, but subpar armor follows directly and the size problems will keep those ships most of the time so far away from boardfights, they don't need to be considered.

Even if they're offboard, they need to be considered when their fighters, 'Mechs, and artillery are destroying your conventional units.

And after all that was one reason why i didn't wanted a bigger ship: Give the gamers a chance to hit that thing with something else than counterartillery fire, divebombers, orbital attack or a nuclear warhead.
And that's where the rules sucks as they penalize anything not as massive as a battleship and keep anything big enough to survive some hits far away from any gaming table.

[cray]

So, if i want a ship which could possible close to the shore line and give enemy mech and tank troops just a slight chance of encountering it, i have to use a bare backside or a selfmade map or drop the idea entirely because of insane measures and or rule restrictions.

Of course. These things are oceangoing ships. If you're using them like giant tanks wading near the coast line, then you're not using large vessels correctly. Use conventional displacement hull and hydrofoil vehicles - those are much more suited for direct combat with 'Mechs and operating on small maps.

As for custom maps, have you looked into Heavy Metal: Maps?

??? And what do people do who dislike this 'bigger is better' mentality? I for myself dislike this type of mindset.

I guess you won't like large naval vessels then. :) The concept of large naval vessels was to allow players to build carriers, freighters, destroyers, tankers, and all the other large naval vessels of Earth's seas for BattleTech. If you have issues with things bigger than patrol boats, don't use them.

Their size and turning issues does not make them useless for other people's games, though, just within the restricted conditions you've set for your gaming enjoyment.

[Fireangel]

So, if i want a ship which could possible close to the shore line and give enemy mech and tank troops just a slight chance of encountering it, i have to use a bare backside or a selfmade map or drop the idea entirely because of insane measures and or rule restrictions.

OR you could design something lighter and better capable for what you want. Really; large naval vessels are not generally intended for use so close to the shore that they can come under fire from “tank troops” on shore; a Cruise Missile 120 has enough range that no Long Tom shore battery would have any hope of touching it. At those ranges out at sea, three submerged levels is a non-issue.

??? And what do people do who dislike this 'bigger is better' mentality? I for myself dislike this type of mindset.

But it is true for large vessel design; that is the reason why large support vessels areso large; if they could fit all that capability in a smaller hull they would.

Just to repeat myself: It is not the tonnage that troubles the construction. There is plenty of free weight left. It is the space limitation that stops any usage of space consuming large weapon systems such as artillery or even the totally extreme Cruise Missiles (up to 120 slots for a single starter!!!).

This is done to prevent things like using those same 120 slots for something like 120 ERPPCs or having the large NSVs totally dominate the game.

The engine, as it doesn't need any of those free slots, is the only possibility aside from chassis modifications to burn some of the unused weight otherwise declared as storage. 6/9 or even worse 8/12 is an effect not the cause of those ships (or my construction) problems.

Or a helipad, landing platform or simply fuel/cargo for extended deployments.

Even if they're offboard, they need to be considered when their fighters, 'Mechs, and artillery are destroying your conventional units.

And after all that was one reason why i didn't wanted a bigger ship: Give the gamers a chance to hit that thing with something else than counterartillery fire, divebombers, orbital attack or a nuclear warhead.

That’s what hovertanks, WiGEs, VTOLs and other naval units (both “combat” and “combat support vehicle” varieties) are for. Really; the whole point of having large assets out at sea is to prevent any idiot with a Scorpion tank from shooting you up; you want to take out the LNSV? Better bring the assets to deal with it or allow it to attack you with impunity. Seriously, if you bring it within range of conventional units on shore you are using it wrong.

And that's where the rules sucks as they penalize anything not as massive as a battleship and keep anything big enough to survive some hits far away from any gaming table.

Nope. The rules reflect the nature of large-scale blue-water naval combat in the 31st century.

[JPArbiter]

the other thing is that large naval vessels are built for specializing, you basically want to build the equilent of an Aegis Missile Cruiser, so why give it stuff likle a Helipad, massive battle armor contingent, torpedo launcher etc.

focus on getting 3 or 4 Cruise missile tubes and a rudimentary secondary weapon systems (LB-2X Autocannons for AA Defense, SRT 2s for Anti Sub work, machine guns and a platoon of marines) and BUILD AN ESCORT

[Ruger]

the other thing is that large naval vessels are built for specializing, you basically want to build the equilent of an Aegis Missile Cruiser, so why give it stuff likle a Helipad, massive battle armor contingent, torpedo launcher etc.

The Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser actually does carry 2 helicopters, as do nany/most modern cruisers, destroyers and frigates...they also have torpedo launchers...

focus on getting 3 or 4 Cruise missile tubes and a rudimentary secondary weapon systems (LB-2X Autocannons for AA Defense, SRT 2s for Anti Sub work, machine guns and a platoon of marines) and BUILD AN ESCORT

The thing to remember, at least according to what I've read, is that most modern cruisers (or other surface warships) that are armed with anti-ship/surface missiles actually do not have that many of them, and also have limited launchers (if they have launchers capable of firing more than one missile)...much of their missile load is actually anti-air missiles for defense against fighters or anti-ship missiles, with some anti-submarine rockets as well. Then, they will often carry a five-inch cannon or two, often some kind of rotary barrell anti-missile defense weapon (such as the American Phalanx) or two, and can be equipped with smaller machine guns for defense against speedboats and the like, as well as some slightly larger cannons for defense against larger patrol boats or pirate craft.

Ruger

[Eldragon]

As someone who does not have every sourcebook ever printed... Where are the record sheets for large naval vessels?

Don't think I'd ever bother rolling one up myself, since this is the kind of thing where a vanilla ship will suit my needs most of the time.  couple of times I thought about using one in a scenario game, but I looked at the construction rules and decided not to bother.

[Ruger]

As someone who does not have every sourcebook ever printed... Where are the record sheets for large naval vessels?

Tactical Operations

Ruger

[Eldragon]

Tactical Operations

Ruger

 Filled out Record Sheets with a variety of ship designs? Memory is a little foggy (and I don't have my copy handy), but I think TacOps just has the blank record sheet?

[Ruger]

Filled out Record Sheets with a variety of ship designs? Memory is a little foggy (and I don't have my copy handy), but I think TacOps just has the blank record sheet?

My apologies. I thought you were asking for the blank one. I do not believe that actual record sheets for the designs released thus far have been released, but may be mistaken.

Ruger

[Fireangel]

the other thing is that large naval vessels are built for specializing, you basically want to build the equilent of an Aegis Missile Cruiser, so why give it stuff likle a Helipad, massive battle armor contingent, torpedo launcher etc.

focus on getting 3 or 4 Cruise missile tubes and a rudimentary secondary weapon systems (LB-2X Autocannons for AA Defense, SRT 2s for Anti Sub work, machine guns and a platoon of marines) and BUILD AN ESCORT

A helipad (even without an associated light vehicle bay) is extremely useful in any blue water vessel; it allows for fast and easy boarding/unloading of personnel and materiel at sea without the need to dock or perform UNREP. It also does not use up slots (just a turret location,which most large NSVs can easily afford) and sucks up some of that pesky surplus tonnage.

Or a light vehicle bay for carrying a launch or captain's gig (surface, WiGE or hover) might be considered practical.

I second using LB2-X for AAA work,but must point out that at sea, the LRT is king; SRT's are just a good way of letting enemy subs get into their PPC/Large laser ranges; LRT's keep them at bay.

In the current battlefield environment, AMS is highly recommended for non-submersible ships; at least enough to neutralize a Killer Whale (Santa Ana) dropped from orbit.

Y'all may laugh all you want, but a few platoons of AAA infantry on deck can provide good additional air cover if the situation warrants it AND provides additional firepower against surface threats,to say nothing of internal security and other functions.

[Weirdo]

Record sheets for some large ships can be found in the backs of some of the House Handbooks.

[Colt Ward]

Well, large naval vessels would be great fire support platforms like IRL.

By that I mean A4 and Long Tom . . .

[Weirdo]

Like existing platforms, such as the Jormungand, Argo, Rapier, what's-it-Liao, Triton, Lysander, and Luftenburg? :)

[Jellico]

Maybe. IRL fire support as imagined isn't really that helpful. No one is going to be storming the beaches D-Day style in the forseeable future, if only because it will get everyone killed.

As for large support ships, artillery systems take up a huge number of criticals, limiting the number of weapons that can be carried. Thats before you get into the very short ranges of battletech weapons.

[FedComGirl]

Don't forget that this is BATTLETECH; home of the 500kg Ma Deuce MG. Sheer tonnage is just a relative issue. Hull breach rules apply only to submerged units (not on the surface, so a light MG can't sink a Luftenberg). Large support vehicles CAN use "real armour"; it's called BAR/10 and is just as effective as Standard BT armour in resisting penetration.

It would take 425 shots from the MG to wear out the Luftenberg's armor. Barring a lucky roll.

Surface ships do have to roll for hull integrity for locations that are in the water.

What does a Game Template has to do with a supertanker? Nothing. It does not affect its floatation or anything if it weighs 30.000 tons or 21 times more if it is for game stats. After all a 30,000 ton ship will measure monstrous 270 meter in length aka 9 Hexes in Battletech reducing it to a simple proxy far off of any coast. And to make matters worth, a 12.001 ton ship will be designated template D which isn't really smaller, leaving it with the same problems as the bigger one but with much inferior protection against anything.

The template doesn't change how much armor a ship can carry. As far as getting close to shore, why are you complaining about not being close when your lobbing cruise missiles with a range of 150 map sheets?

So, if i want a ship which could possible close to the shore line and give enemy mech and tank troops just a slight chance of encountering it, i have to use a bare backside or a selfmade map or drop the idea entirely because of insane measures and or rule restrictions.

There's also plenty of places closer to shore with a depth of 4 or more. How else would big ships come into port, much less be built and launched in the first place? That there aren't premade map sheets that you want to use isn't the fault of the construction rules. Just double the water depths and play or make your own map.

??? And what do people do who dislike this 'bigger is better' mentality? I for myself dislike this type of mindset.

And yet you want to use the biggest cruise missile?  Use a smaller one. You could put a Cruise Missile/50 into an Ahab Whaler. It's only a Template A 310 ton ship. Left over tonnage could go to upgrading the armor and adding some close range weapons for defense.

Just to repeat myself: It is not the tonnage that troubles the construction. There is plenty of free weight left. It is the space limitation that stops any usage of space consuming large weapon systems such as artillery or even the totally extreme Cruise Missiles (up to 120 slots for a single starter!!!). The engine, as it doesn't need any of those free slots, is the only possibility aside from chassis modifications to burn some of the unused weight otherwise declared as storage. 6/9 or even worse 8/12 is an effect not the cause of those ships (or my construction) problems.

I have to wonder if you really understand dhow massive these weapons really are. There's pictures of crewmembers who've crawled up the barrels of the big guns. Tomahawk cruise missile are also 20ft long!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Box_Launcher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Launch_System

These things are big! They're going to take up space.

And after all that was one reason why i didn't wanted a bigger ship: Give the gamers a chance to hit that thing with something else than counterartillery fire, divebombers, orbital attack or a nuclear warhead.
And that's where the rules sucks as they penalize anything not as massive as a battleship and keep anything big enough to survive some hits far away from any gaming table.

Please see the picture on page 249 in Tactical Operations. It shows two mechs on a cliff looking down at a big ship. Also see the picture for the Kaleen Bay Tanker/Anastaska Marco Freighter  as well as the Seahorse/Verne Cargo Subsin TRO:VA. Their pictures show Template C and D ships at the docks. If cargo ships can get that close to shore your battleships can too.

[dirty harry]

It would take 425 shots from the MG to wear out the Luftenberg's armor. Barring a lucky roll.

The Luftenburg uses the biggest hull available and the absolute maximum armor. You can't mount surpass this amount of armor on any other large vessel. Sure it is tough with such a thick hide, but it is the biggest of the biggest to encounter. And it faces a -4 for every attack made against it. So i have to say big ships NEED a lot of armor because it gets hit with hardly everything. But that doesn't refer to the Luftenburg only but to every LNV with more than 30.000 tons. To bad, but the maximum armor of a 30.000 ton ship will not exceed 1589 points of BAR 10 armor. That will leave you with an estimate of 200 plates in every section while facing fire like an immobile target. Well... a dive bombing attack followed by two to three passings of large ASFs and your big ship will be gone - if it doesn't feature more and more tonnage.

The template doesn't change how much armor a ship can carry. As far as getting close to shore, why are you complaining about not being close when your lobbing cruise missiles with a range of 150 map sheets?

Because not every encounter will be close to the shore line and in order to assist i need something with RANGE. There is nothing else like the Cruise Missile so it was a fascinating idea. But it was stopped by several reasons. And size matters are only one of three. The others are vulnerable armor when planing something like a destroyer or frigate and more and more slot limitations.

There's also plenty of places closer to shore with a depth of 4 or more. How else would big ships come into port, much less be built and launched in the first place? That there aren't premade map sheets that you want to use isn't the fault of the construction rules. Just double the water depths and play or make your own map.

What?!? It indicates, that i HAVE to use my own maps because there is NO available map featuring enough L4 depth straigth in a line to place such a big ship. That is also what i am complainig. Without house rules or homegrown maps there will be no way to show how such a big thing could enter a harbor. Therefore the template sizes are off limits. And by the way if you still cling to real life: only a handful of the biggest military ships reach the 12m depth thereby only need Level 2...

And yet you want to use the biggest cruise missile?  Use a smaller one. You could put a Cruise Missile/50 into an Ahab Whaler. It's only a Template A 310 ton ship. Left over tonnage could go to upgrading the armor and adding some close range weapons for defense.

First of all, it was the fascination for advanced reach. But it is insanly large so i dropped that idea after all. And even the CM/50 is kind of a glutton with 55 slots for the starter and at least one more slot for the ammo bin. By the way: your mentioned Ahab Whaler has 38 slots in total and a maximum armor protection of 104 plates. A J.Edgar hovertank shows a better armor protection as it doesn't need to alocate it to six to seven locations. And you can't upgrade as ferrofibrous armor is not available to support vehicles.

I have to wonder if you really understand dhow massive these weapons really are. There's pictures of crewmembers who've crawled up the barrels of the big guns. Tomahawk cruise missile are also 20ft long!
These things are big! They're going to take up space.

First: Real life doesn't matter for calculation.
Second: Inplay missiles are sometimes silly tiny (a Arrow IV about 200 kg... well... that's the size of small diameter bomb, but that doesn't need a rocket booster...) or oversized (the CM/120 itself weights 65 tons... a Minuteman III weights 35 tons and still goes global...)
Third: Cruise Missiles inplay are a monstrosity in any way. I conclude that its size is an afterthought after someone realized how overpowered those missiles inplay are. The biggest one features a blast more massive than a Davy Crockett nuclear device at ranges unsurpassed by anything else. To prevent something like this to tick off every single game it needs to be an ultrarare object. Thereby its size has been increased to a level noone would really want it or could afford it. There is only the Kalki superheavy tank out there with only a single CM/50 on its back and still it weights 125 tons! After realising that, only ships or dropships could house such a fat missile. And with bluewater navy still something that suppossedly noone needs the slot limitations have been boosted to a level never seen before.
So, finally, we are still left with dropships which are widely available with no problems mounting the launcher (only a single system slot...) and only facing the heavy weight. But there are some dropships out there mounting capital missiles, so there is no need for complaining.

It just scrapped the whole idea of using it on a somewhat different way. :P

Please see the picture on page 249 in Tactical Operations. It shows two mechs on a cliff looking down at a big ship. Also see the picture for the Kaleen Bay Tanker/Anastaska Marco Freighter  as well as the Seahorse/Verne Cargo Subsin TRO:VA. Their pictures show Template C and D ships at the docks. If cargo ships can get that close to shore your battleships can too.

So what? It is a fluffy photo respective artwork. It doesn't need to be gamerealistic. So there is no real relation between this and that.

[Fireangel]

Again, I will repeat: If your 10,000 ton+ blue water warship is in range of shore tanks and 'mechs,you are doing something seriously wrong.

If you want to use such a vessel correctly, you will use them out at sea, where the depth levels are irrelevant. Template D is 9 hexes long? irrelevant in a big enough battlefield... especially a rolling one. Lack of published deep-water maps should not be an obstacle to play.

Stop comparing ocean-going large vessels to land-based combat vehicles; I will bet you good money that the CO of USS Aegis does not want to face an M1A2 Abrams because the Abrams is going to poke some serious holes in the warship's hull and God help him if a sabot hits a missile or ammo bunker.

What are the MOST LIKELY opponents a blue navy surface warship will face?

1) aerospace fighters
2) hovercraft
3) light surface combat vessels or hunter attack subs (<50 tons)
4) shore artillery
5) orbital bombardment

Most of these threats can be significantly reduced if the ship in question is capable of submerging,but since the issue issurface ships, all are an issue.

Let's take them by numbers:

1) aero fighters have the range to reach the ship wherever it may be, either launching from orbit or from shore. best counter is armour thick enough to survive a strafe, several bombs or air-launched missiles, AMS enough to neutralize said missiles and AAA guns to discourage too many attacks. Having your own fighters is also useful... and don't forget: AMS can take off vertically from helipads.
2) if the invading enemy brought vehicles, it is likely at least a few are hovertanks. few hovertanks carry truly heavy weapons, so moderate armour will suffice. defensive armaments work great against hover vees; motive hits kill hovertanks dead over water. Oh, and torpedoes do affect hovercraft in TW.  8)
3) if the enemy is REALLY worried about the presence of the wet warship, they will bring their own naval assets; keepin mind that every ton they dedicate to bringing these naval assets is one ton less dedicated to stuff that can be used elsewhere, so light (<50 tons) surface boats and hunter subs would be most likely. Larger ones,up to 100 tons may also be possible,but less likely. Full-on large support vees are least likely of all, since these require specialized assets to bring to the battlefield.
4) shore artillery; unless you pack artillery of your own, there is no reason to get within artillery range of a land battle. If you DO have artillery, you only have to worry about artillery that outranges your own, so if you pack a Long Tom, you're golden. Cruise missiles? where the the heck did the enemy get them? if they brought them, why? and don'd forget...you need a spotter.
5) orbital bombardment can't be countered in any practical manner unless you are capable of submerging. If your Luftenburg or Jormungand has drawn the attention of an asset capable of shooting you from orbit,your only hope is that friendly fighters can delay it enough for you to abandon ship.

Really. Any construction issues are just minor details.

[Weirdo]

With regards to an orbital strike, don't discount a ship's ability to evade incoming fire. Remember that most energy bays are small, while ballistic shots take a turn to land, and missiles even longer. If you weather the energy salvo, anything short of a Luftenburg can easily get out of the immediate area, and a turn or two means that predicting your path becomes almost impossible. Now granted you can't evade forever, but you can stretch things out a lot, more than enough time to vector a wing or two of fighters to your defense.

[Fireangel]

With regards to an orbital strike, don't discount a ship's ability to evade incoming fire. Remember that most energy bays are small, while ballistic shots take a turn to land, and missiles even longer. If you weather the energy salvo, anything short of a Luftenburg can easily get out of the immediate area, and a turn or two means that predicting your path becomes almost impossible. Now granted you can't evade forever, but you can stretch things out a lot, more than enough time to vector a wing or two of fighters to your defense.

Absolutely. No argument there.

You can also try to hide the surface warship from orbital detection (try hunting down a skinny little ship* in the middle of the ocean or camouflaged/under cover at some hideout...), but once it is found, unless you have assets in place to divert (and we are talking about hours or days) or destroy the orbital platform, once it has been found, it is only a matter of time before the ship is sunk. It can be delayed, but the conclusion is foregone.

As pointed out, several factors can reduce this vulnerability: first and foremost is the ability to submerge. Not having a fusion engine also helps (detectable by neutrino detectors in larger warships). OR the surface warship can be built to look like some other type of vessel from orbit (y'know, so it does not look like a sleek, long warship with gun turrets and a helipad...  ::)), like a freighter or fishing vessel.


* Trust me, even template E (270m long, 90m wide) is tiny when looked at from orbit in the vastness of an ocean. VOE [metalhealth]

[FedComGirl]

The Luftenburg uses the biggest hull available and the absolute maximum armor. You can't mount surpass this amount of armor on any other large vessel. Sure it is tough with such a thick hide, but it is the biggest of the biggest to encounter. And it faces a -4 for every attack made against it. So i have to say big ships NEED a lot of armor because it gets hit with hardly everything. But that doesn't refer to the Luftenburg only but to every LNV with more than 30.000 tons. To bad, but the maximum armor of a 30.000 ton ship will not exceed 1589 points of BAR 10 armor. That will leave you with an estimate of 200 plates in every section while facing fire like an immobile target. Well... a dive bombing attack followed by two to three passings of large ASFs and your big ship will be gone - if it doesn't feature more and more tonnage.

Pretty much like what happened to the battleships during WWII? Battleships ended up being replaced by carriers because their aircraft were so deadly to the big ships. That's why no one has built any since then. I think the USA is the only one to have a battleship and it's in the mothball fleet.

Because not every encounter will be close to the shore line and in order to assist i need something with RANGE. There is nothing else like the Cruise Missile so it was a fascinating idea. But it was stopped by several reasons. And size matters are only one of three. The others are vulnerable armor when planing something like a destroyer or frigate and more and more slot limitations.

If you're using a weapon with RANGE why are you so concerned about it not being able to get close to shore? There's also 5 different Naval Template sizes and 4 sizes of cruise missile. The smallest of which will fit on the smallest template. If you really want to pack in lots of cruise missiles why don't you build a mobile structure?

As for armor, destroyers and frigates have always had less armor than capital ships because they're more built for speed. More armor would slow them down. And why are you worrying about armor when the enemy is going to be 50 map sheets away or more?

What?!? It indicates, that i HAVE to use my own maps because there is NO available map featuring enough L4 depth straigth in a line to place such a big ship. That is also what i am complainig. Without house rules or homegrown maps there will be no way to show how such a big thing could enter a harbor. Therefore the template sizes are off limits. And by the way if you still cling to real life: only a handful of the biggest military ships reach the 12m depth thereby only need Level 2...

It??? still cling to real life? That seriously sounds like an insult. Please tone down your attitude.

Again your problem isn't the construction rules but lack of maps to do what you want. TPTB knew that they wouldn't have maps that meet everyone's needs. Why do you think they gave us blank ones? There's also nothing to prevent you from changing depths on the ones with water like I said. Also most big ships don't get that close to shore except when they come in to dock. They fire from off shore so they won't get stuck on shore.

First of all, it was the fascination for advanced reach. But it is insanly large so i dropped that idea after all. And even the CM/50 is kind of a glutton with 55 slots for the starter and at least one more slot for the ammo bin. By the way: your mentioned Ahab Whaler has 38 slots in total and a maximum armor protection of 104 plates. A J.Edgar hovertank shows a better armor protection as it doesn't need to alocate it to six to seven locations. And you can't upgrade as ferrofibrous armor is not available to support vehicles.

You're right I miss counted the Ahab's number of slots however the J. Edgar does carry less armor and has 5 locations to spread it over.

Have you considered using the Super Heavy Vehicle Rules?Naval vessels can be up to 550 tons are restricted to depth 1+ can mount up to 1965 points of armor can use FF and other armors, can use various engine types and has 115 slots to place items in. And Cruise missiles count as 1 item plus 1 for the ammo. 

First: Real life doesn't matter for calculation.
Second: Inplay missiles are sometimes silly tiny (a Arrow IV about 200 kg... well... that's the size of small diameter bomb, but that doesn't need a rocket booster...) or oversized (the CM/120 itself weights 65 tons... a Minuteman III weights 35 tons and still goes global...)
Third: Cruise Missiles inplay are a monstrosity in any way. I conclude that its size is an afterthought after someone realized how overpowered those missiles inplay are. The biggest one features a blast more massive than a Davy Crockett nuclear device at ranges unsurpassed by anything else. To prevent something like this to tick off every single game it needs to be an ultrarare object. Thereby its size has been increased to a level noone would really want it or could afford it. There is only the Kalki superheavy tank out there with only a single CM/50 on its back and still it weights 125 tons! After realising that, only ships or dropships could house such a fat missile. And with bluewater navy still something that suppossedly noone needs the slot limitations have been boosted to a level never seen before.
So, finally, we are still left with dropships which are widely available with no problems mounting the launcher (only a single system slot...) and only facing the heavy weight. But there are some dropships out there mounting capital missiles, so there is no need for complaining.

It just scrapped the whole idea of using it on a somewhat different way. :P

First  ???  You're not going to fit many cruise missile, if any at all on a PT boat.
Second. I know BT and RL don't match up in a lot of ways. Most missile launchers and even some cannons would be single shot weapons. Can you see missiles trying to get through a shoulder or elbow joint? I think you missed that Combat Naval ships can be 125+ tons too. Try using the super heavy vehicle rules to build your ship. They're on page 378 in Tactical Operations. An older version of the rules are in Maximum Tech but there are differences.

So what? It is a fluffy photo respective artwork. It doesn't need to be gamerealistic. So there is no real relation between this and that.

 ???

That's what you want your ship to do isn't it? No one is stopping you. Do it.

[rlbell]

Not having a fusion engine also helps (detectable by neutrino detectors in larger warships).

IIRC, the canonicity of neutrino detectors is in doubt, due to the blatant amounts of magic needed to make them work on a warship smaller than the Death Star.  To detect a neutrino, you present a large mass (the SNO uses 1000 tons of heavy water) of potential interactions and shield the detector with enough solid material to keep any other interacting particle out of the detector (current detectors use thousands of meters of water/ice/rock).  Even with all of that, you will not be detecting many neutrinos.  The first detector, based on a specific type of neutrino produced by the sun in copious quantities that can convert chlorine into argon, used 600 tons of 1,1,1 trichlorethane (dry cleaning fluid) and only expected to detect ten neutrinos a day (in the end, it only detected 3 a day and initiated the solar neutrino contraversy)

A starship's neutrino detector is not going to detect the fusion engine of a large naval support vessel.  The support vessel's power rating is, at most, only a few multiples of 10^9 watts.  Dropships and warships have power ratings four to seven orders of magnitude larger.  The support vessel's reactor is many kilometers away from the warship, the warship's reactor is not only nearly a million times more powerful, it is mounted in the warship's hull.  Even with its own fusion reactor shut down, there is still interference from the system primary.   Neutrino detectors, if they exist, are really only useful for detecting the fusion reactor of large spacecraft running their transit drive.

[cray]

IIRC, the canonicity of neutrino detectors is in doubt, due to the blatant amounts of magic needed to make them work on a warship smaller than the Death Star.

Oh, no, neutrino detectors are canon, and there's at least one novel that made a handheld neutrino detector (although that ignored the Explorer Corps statement that neutrino detectors couldn't be fitted to ships smaller than cruisers). They're just not going to be supported any more because their capabilities are too out of sorts with other BT sensors.

A starship's neutrino detector is not going to detect the fusion engine of a large naval support vessel.

The rules say they can spot and track individual fusion engines of any size throughout their range. That means once a neutrino detector adapts to a star system (supposedly taking a couple of weeks), it can watch every fusion engine - 'Mech, personal car, DropShip, etc - at 10AU.

Considering most other BT sensors have trouble seeing objects at 0.01AU, the neutrino detector hasn't been reprinted since Explorer Corps.

[Moonsword]

I think we can safely classify neutrino detectors as "Sir Not Appearing In This Picture", then.

One thing to be aware of is that it's really not that hard to generate enough orbital reconnaissance checks to spot a unit.  BattleTech's visual satellite sensors have 1m resolution from orbit and a Template E vessel is large enough that it's spottable with the 30m resolution Thematic Mapper package on Landsat 5.  The logistical problem is not whether or not the vessel can be spotted if the patch of ocean it's on is imaged by these sensors.   The problems are A) imaging said patches of ocean promptly (which depends on the swath covered by the sensors, something I don't have information on) and B) processing the data from said images to find any anomalies on the ocean like, say, the vessel you're looking for.  These aren't trivial, particularly since one of the ways of solving A is to generate more data by putting more sensor platforms in position to look, but they're doable.  Dealing with B gets into questions of how fast the data can be processed, how smart supporting software is for spotting anomalies, and how many bodies you can throw at the problem.  You also need to question how well disguised the vessel is - the more it looks like the water, the harder it is to spot.  Submarines, which can dive under the water, can evade visual detection easily.

Exactly how the rules play out - whether or not you can do this purely from orbit with imager- and NCSS-equipped craft or if you need someone down in the battle space to receive data - I don't know, but once you can start making multiple 2d6 rolls against TN 8, finding them is a matter of a reasonably short amount of time.  Reconnaissance cameras require a lot more time and have a more limited viewing area but they can also get the job done.

What makes this whole thing less depressing is that the condition of having enough reconnaissance platforms apparently is not that common, nor is someone necessarily looking for defensive units.  Since this is automatically getting into campaign play, disguise can also play a role here - if your "carrier" looks like a grain carrier, just spotting it may not get the enemy anywhere unless they know what it is.

[rlbell]

Oh, no, neutrino detectors are canon, and there's at least one novel that made a handheld neutrino detector (although that ignored the Explorer Corps statement that neutrino detectors couldn't be fitted to ships smaller than cruisers). They're just not going to be supported any more because their capabilities are too out of sorts with other BT sensors.

The rules say they can spot and track individual fusion engines of any size throughout their range. That means once a neutrino detector adapts to a star system (supposedly taking a couple of weeks), it can watch every fusion engine - 'Mech, personal car, DropShip, etc - at 10AU.

Considering most other BT sensors have trouble seeing objects at 0.01AU, the neutrino detector hasn't been reprinted since Explorer Corps.

My bad!  TPTB not supporting neutrino sensors is what I meant.

Hand held neutrino sensors imply so much technomagic that the BT universe could not be as we recognize it.  A one kilogram mass of heavy water in a 6cm radius sphere could pick up thirty solar neutrinos in a year (detection rate is based on path length and density)-- IF you can shield the device from all other energetic particles .  So, a handheld device includes portable shielding that stops all X-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays-- mount a larger version on mechs and ships and they have nigh invulnerable shields against lasers and PPC's.  How they fare against large kinetic bolides is any guess.  The shielding problem can be mitigated by mounting the neutrino detector inside a detector for generic high energy particles and reject any event that excites both sensors, but still leaves the problem of not detecting many neutrino events.  They only way around that is to present a very large, dense and (if you want to know where the neutrino came from) transparent mass, so a handheld detector incorporates both transparent degenerate matter and antigravity fields.

As for descriminating all of the various neutrino sources on a planet, there is the wicked problem that all beta decays release neutrinos (why Fermi proposed their existence, to account for an apparent violation of conservation of energy), so rocky planets may be a large, diffuse sources of them.  Depending on how many neutrino events can be detected per unit time, it may take weeks of observations to seperate a stationary source from that background.  Tracking a moving source requires capturing multiple neutrinos from it as it moves, which requires a detector of huge mass, or rediculous amounts of raw magic.

[Marwynn]

Whew. I just finished creating a series of fusion-powered subs and forgot all about the neutrino detectors! Thankfully, they're being swept under the rug.

Back to Wordpad and TacOps!

[Flameblade]

As noted in the construction forum thread..

I personally would look at the mobile building rules to create a large blue navy warship to get around the items restriction.

[FedComGirl]

Using the super heavy vehicle construction rules allows you to use every vehicles under 100 tons can. They go up to 500 tons.

[Fireangel]

Using the super heavy vehicle construction rules allows you to use every vehicles under 100 tons can. They go up to 500 tons.

The problem with super-heavy vehicles constructed under the combat vehicle rules is that they are little more than powered barges; with a suspension factor of 30, you need some pretty big engines, even using XXL and Large engines, limiting them to a top speed of 1/2 or 2/3 MP (for the smaller ones; fastest possible 2/3 would be a 265-tonner with a 500-rated XXL Large Engine that weighs in at 231.5 tons!  :o).

Basically, if you want to build a naval unit larger than 265 tons that goes faster than 1/2 MP, your ONLY choice is to use the support vehicle construction rules. Also keep in mind that even that unit is boasting a full-on Large XXL engine,making it prohibitively expensive for what is essentially a barge for local use.

[FedComGirl]

I was wrong they go up to 555 tons, unless that's been changed in the PDF since there isn't an engine rating that big.

The 500 XXL Engine is 154.5 tons but you're right they're really expensive. Still it would let you pack in a lot of cruise missile launchers at 1 slot each and mount different kinds of armors. It'd make an expensive sea turtle.  ;D

[Moonsword]

The 500 XXL Engine is 154.5 tons but you're right they're really expensive. Still it would let you pack in a lot of cruise missile launchers at 1 slot each and mount different kinds of armors.

You're right that that's the number in the book but the large engines don't waive the need for shielding.  Fireangel's 231.5 ton figure is off by a half-ton for a combat vehicle mounting such an engine (my math gives 232 tons).

So we've got 333 (332.5 by his math) tons accounted for by the engine and the internal structure alone.  The smallest possible cruise missile installation (a CM/50 with one round) is 80 tons, so you can fit two of them.  What you could do is mount an impressive Long Tom battery with a decent ammo load.

[FedComGirl]

Oh yeah Oops! silly me  :D

Yep. Could be fun  ;D

[Fireangel]

You're right that that's the number in the book but the large engines don't waive the need for shielding.  Fireangel's 231.5 ton figure is off by a half-ton for a combat vehicle mounting such an engine (my math gives 232 tons).

 ???
Hm... Large 500 base weight is 462.5 tons.
XXL divides by three; 154.166~
Vehicle shielding multiplies by 1.5; 231.25
Round up to nearest half ton; 231.5

I have no problem rounding up to 232 for purposes of this thread  ;), but how did you come up with 232? (just curious) 

[A. Lurker]

???
Hm... Large 500 base weight is 462.5 tons.
XXL divides by three; 154.166~
Vehicle shielding multiplies by 1.5; 231.25
Round up to nearest half ton; 231.5

I have no problem rounding up to 232 for purposes of this thread  ;), but how did you come up with 232? (just curious)

Per the Advanced Engine Master Table on TacOps p. 308, the weight of a large 500 XXL is in fact 154.5 tons, and that times 1.5 yields 231.75 rounding up to 232. Whether you're really supposed to effectively round up to the nearest half ton twice (since that table obviously already did it once) is an interesting question...

[Fireangel]

I was wrong they go up to 555 tons, unless that's been changed in the PDF since there isn't an engine rating that big.

TO pp. 378 states that the SF of super heavy combat naval units equals (Tonnage / 10, rounded up to nearest 5)*. A 555-ton super heavy combat naval unit has an SF: 56, requiring a 499-rated engine, but since these don't exist in canon, a 500-rated Large engine must substitute.

Still, such large "combat vehicles" are impractical due to the enormous size of the engines required; the cheaper engines are simply too heavy (a 500 ICE weighs in at 925 tons! :o) or simply too expensive (XL + Fusion) for the 1/2 MP maximum they can achieve.

Not that I can't see some extremely specialized niches, but honestly, there is a reason why template B & C large naval support vehicles exist; the 555-ton combat barge might have the slots to spare, but it lacks the spare tonnage to fully take advantage of it.

(NOTE: the following is NOT a design; just a numbers exercise)

A 555-ton naval combat unit has (at best):

232 tons of engine (for 1/2 MP performance)
55.5 tons of internal structure (10%; TO pp. 378)
28 tons of control equipment

So far we have used up 315.5 tons out of 555, leaving 239.5 tons for everything else... and only 10 item slots to fit it in.

It can sport a maximum of 1982 points of armour, spread out over 6-8 locations (6 base plus1-2 turrets). This translates as an average of 330 per facing in a non-turreted barge, 283 in a barge with one turret and 247 in a barge with two turrets. All this armour weighs in at 123.5 tons (for Std. Armour).

So maxed out in armour (needed, given its practical immobility) there are 116 tons left for 10 item slots.

Of course, one might consider trading armour protection for the ability to submerge (55.5 tons)... or not...

Funniest thing is that the smaller the barge, the larger the payload:

A 550-ton naval combat unit has (at best):

203 tons of engine (495 XXL Large) (for 1/2 MP performance)
55 tons of internal structure (10%; TO pp. 378)
27.5 tons of control equipment

Total: 285.5 tons (25 more tons available than the 555-tonner).

Of course, there is a point of reversal, but it will still go at a whooping 1/2 MP.


* You are not the only one who misremembered the rule: SF: 30 applies only up to 300-ton naval (combat) units.  :-[

[Moonsword]

I have no problem rounding up to 232 for purposes of this thread  ;), but how did you come up with 232? (just curious) 

As A. Lurker noted, it was a 150% multiplier off of the listing for the 500 XXL fusion engine, which is 231.75 tons.  I figured you were going by a formula at some point in the process instead of reading it out of the book I did which I would note is a legitimate option since you may be using fractional accounting.  However, the question didn't specify, so going by the minimum set of optional rules necessary for the concept, it's supposed to be 232 ton.

The problem with the curve in this entire question is the fact that large engines are ridiculously inefficient.  The larger stock engines (most pointedly the 400-rated engines) are already moving that way, after all.  The large engines take the ball and run over the horizon with it.

[Fireangel]

Ah! that explains it. I was working off a .doc that lists the base weights of Large engines only.

Yeah. Inefficiency of Large engines is one cast-iron sandy beach. It's almost as if TPTB put them out just to shut up those clamoring for higher-rated engines and not have to worry about unbalancing the game.

[Moonsword]

Well, as I said, the 400-rated engines are already pointing that way if you look at the numbers.  The smaller large engines are sort of passable, but the engine tonnages seem to work on an exponential calculation of some sort and it really kicks into high gear around 420 or so.  (I may not be correct there, of course.)

As far as the document, it might be descended from the MaxTech engine list, which didn't calculate things out fully the way the TacOps chart did.

[A. Lurker]

Well, strictly speaking the TacOps chart also isn't quite complete. It fails to list the weights for XXL engines rated 400 and below, so for any hypothetical vehicles using those you're forced to ponder "1/3 normal, +50%, now where was I supposed to round up to the nearest half ton again?" anyway. ;)

Personally, I'd favor doing any rounding purely at the end, keeping fractions until then. Introduces the least error from a mathematical point of view, and there's occasional precedent for it elsewhere in the rulebooks. But as in our case here, applying a straight formula on the one hand and using the actual tables on the other won't always give the same results if we do that, and that's not something I'm really comfortable with either. (It doesn't help that, as far as I know, the formula used to derive standard engine weights -- if one even exists and the first numbers weren't just pulled out of thin air and massaged until they felt right -- hasn't ever been published in the first place.)

[FedComGirl]

It can sport a maximum of 1982 points of armour, spread out over 6-8 locations (6 base plus1-2 turrets). This translates as an average of 330 per facing in a non-turreted barge, 283 in a barge with one turret and 247 in a barge with two turrets. All this armour weighs in at 123.5 tons (for Std. Armour).

Can be lightened with other armors though or made heavier with more effective points with hardened armor. Still, even with standard armor that's a lot of points.  It's also more than a support vehicle. If I did it right a Support ship the same weight can only have 189 points of armor. That's 12 tons of tech D armor. If I did it right.

So far we have used up 315.5 tons out of 555, leaving 239.5 tons for everything else... and only 10 item slots to fit it in.

Um...Combat vehicles have 5 critical slots plus 1 for ever 5 tons the vehicle weighs. I come up with 116 slots.

Funniest thing is that the smaller the barge, the larger the payload:

Funny how that works.

I think it comes down to whether you want a heavily armed and armored sea turtle or a lighter armed faster dolphin.

[Fireangel]

Can be lightened with other armors though or made heavier with more effective points with hardened armor. Still, even with standard armor that's a lot of points.  It's also more than a support vehicle. If I did it right a Support ship the same weight can only have 189 points of armor. That's 12 tons of tech D armor. If I did it right.

It needs the protection; at 1/2 MP it can't really get away from an area; once spotted it can be attacked with impunity by the enemy. Of course, if it gets a motive hit, that's the end of it.

Um...Combat vehicles have 5 critical slots plus 1 for ever 5 tons the vehicle weighs. I come up with 116 slots.

Shows how often I design big combat vees.  :D

Funny how that works.

I think it comes down to whether you want a heavily armed and armored sea turtle or a lighter armed faster dolphin.

Basically, yes.But it's more complicated than that; a super heavy combat barge is practically useless for everything except its narrow combat role and even then it's unlikely to survive its first battle. That's a lot of wasted resources. A larger (and in all likelihood, faster) support vehicle, even if identically armed, can remain on-station longer, can travel farther and can be used for a broader range of missions than the turtle.

[FedComGirl]

It needs the protection; at 1/2 MP it can't really get away from an area; once spotted it can be attacked with impunity by the enemy. Of course, if it gets a motive hit, that's the end of it.

Yep :)

Shows how often I design big combat vees.  :D

:) I don't that often either.

Basically, yes.But it's more complicated than that; a super heavy combat barge is practically useless for everything except its narrow combat role and even then it's unlikely to survive its first battle. That's a lot of wasted resources. A larger (and in all likelihood, faster) support vehicle, even if identically armed, can remain on-station longer, can travel farther and can be used for a broader range of missions than the turtle.

That's true. It does have narrow uses but it would require a lot of resources to be spent fighting it. Unless the attacker has Warships or uses nukes it could take a lot of others with it.

[Fireangel]

That's true. It does have narrow uses but it would require a lot of resources to be spent fighting it. Unless the attacker has Warships or uses nukes it could take a lot of others with it.

Not really. with an MP of 1/2, the super heavy barge simply can't go very far in a hurry; far fewer resources are needed to neutralize one as a threat than are needed for a faster vessel that can stay out at sea for weeks or months at a time.

[FedComGirl]

Except when one needs to go through that threat or that threat can reach out and swat you. Other than those situations though faster is better.

[truetanker]

Just curious, can one make a Catamaran - style hull in BT?

HSV-1 Joint Venture and HSV-2 Swift are examples of US Navy catamaran ships.

TT

[Fireangel]

Except when one needs to go through that threat or that threat can reach out and swat you. Other than those situations though faster is better.

Given the lack of mobility, one might consider a fixed emplacement instead. There are some very tight niches where a 1/2 MP naval unit might be just what the doctor ordered, but for 99.999% of applications it is just a target waiting to get sunk.

Just curious, can one make a Catamaran - style hull in BT?

HSV-1 Joint Venture and HSV-2 Swift are examples of US Navy catamaran ships.

TT

In BT, naval hulls come in three varieties: "displacement hull", "hydrofoil" and "submersible". The actual form it takes is irrelevant for game purposes; the number or arrangement of hulls is purely a matter of fluff. The 100,000-ton Luftenberg is a multi-hull arrangement as seen in its official art.

[FedComGirl]

truetanker like Fireangel said you can but it'd be a fluff only thing.

Given the lack of mobility, one might consider a fixed emplacement instead. There are some very tight niches where a 1/2 MP naval unit might be just what the doctor ordered, but for 99.999% of applications it is just a target waiting to get sunk.

yep

[truetanker]

Thanks Fireangel...

What would the maximum tonnage one can build a floating city? Say each " Ship " equals a city block?

Just curious is all, my books are packed away for the season.

TT

[Weirdo]

Go for a mobile structure. You don't track tonnage per se, but you can get some HUGE multi-hex units going, and they can be made submersible too if you want to go all out. 8)

[truetanker]

So what your saying is that I can build a Leviathan II as a submersible Mobile Structure, right?  ;)

TT

[Weirdo]

Yaknow...it might be possible.

You have a mission now.

[truetanker]

Well if I am going to create this monstrosity, a little help might be in order. First just how tall in levels should it be? And how am I going to create a massive enough enginespace to even move the damnable thing?

And can you even fire Naval energy weapons and Capital Missiles from just below surface level water ala Polaris?

TT

[Moonsword]

There's no exception to the general rule about not firing across the water line in the surface-to-orbit fire rules, so I'm going to have to say no, especially given the difficulties you already face firing across the space/atmosphere interface.

On a realistic level, missiles are probably doable (if possibly eating an accuracy penalty), but I have a feeling that trying to fire beam weapons through three different operating environments is going to jerk the penalties to the point the rules may say no for the sake of not having to say no with math that makes the shot impossible.

[FedComGirl]

Well if I am going to create this monstrosity, a little help might be in order. First just how tall in levels should it be? And how am I going to create a massive enough enginespace to even move the damnable thing?

Construction rules are in Tactical Operations. If you have it.

And can you even fire Naval energy weapons and Capital Missiles from just below surface level water ala Polaris?

Yes. The PDF Tactical Operations says, 

Fully submerged units may not attack units above the Water Line, unless they are equipped with Capital Missiles (see p. 103, SO), Cruise Missile (see p. 179) or multi-purpose missiles (see
p. 229, TW).

[Moonsword]

It figures.  I check two of the rule books and the rules I needed to look at are in a third.

[FedComGirl]

It figures.  I check two of the rule books and the rules I needed to look at are in a third.

Isn't it always that way? Must be one of life's mysteries, I guess.

[truetanker]

I got the books but there packed away in a different state from me right now. Don't get me wrong, as soon as I recover them I am doing it.

Lemme see now, a Dropper is about 10 Levels from ground to top... How many Levels do you think the Lev II is upwards? 30 or closer to 36?

TT

[FedComGirl]

That's a bummer.

I don't know but the submersible mobile structure in Jihad Terra is 10 levels.

[truetanker]

Wyrm Sub Mobile Structure right?

I figured something like that... since there isn't any max level to mobile structures anyway. I'll state 36 Levels tall. With at least 10 underwater at all times for buoyancy issues.

TT

[FedComGirl]

That sounds like the one.

That's going to be a big mobile structure

[truetanker]

The Ragnar Magnusson, a Leviathan II Mobile Structure built on the Rasalhague Dominion world of Rasalhague.

 :)
TT

[I am Belch II]

With the Ranges of CBT weapons..Large Naval Vessels are neat to look at, but kinda usless.

[Fireangel]

With the Ranges of CBT weapons..Large Naval Vessels are neat to look at, but kinda usless.

Not really. Conventional weapons serve either as AAA or point-defense against conventional hovercraft/WiGE or combat vehicle naval units. Artillery-grade armament would be for shore bombardment or the rare naval engagement. Large naval support units do have a function in the modern battlefield, but straight-up combat is not it; support and mobile base are primary functions in the modern battlefield for large wet navy vessels.