Author Topic: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?  (Read 7258 times)

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14341
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #150 on: 13 July 2024, 18:29:39 »
would ANY of you actually participate in an Aero/Space naval tourney with the rules as they exist currently?

I mean, seriously.  How many of you would even be interested if it were in your home city?

How playable is it really?

Thre are a lot of 'ground units only' tourneys out there (virtually all of the ones with CGL support are).

so is there actually any real interest? 

Why am I bringing this up here? because it influences the original question and relates to some of the issues brought up, such as KF costing formulas.

I would love to play AT more than my current, less than 1/decade, rate.

As mentioned, I've only played it 3x in my life.

1st was in Army Barracks when stationed in Germany, soooo 1991-92.  This was the only time I've mixed Aero & BT at the same time.

Then my Commando/GM ran a couple scenarios in the Outreach system that I believe were CG sponsored.
So back during the Jihad years..... Early/Mid 2000's?.
The 1st was ASF v/s ASF in atmosphere.
The 2nd was DS/ASF v/s ASF in space.

I liked them all and would happily play them again.

I would need plenty of notice since frankly, w/o regular play, the rules are totally foreign.

More than a Tournament, what would be awesome is if CG put out more scenarios like the Outreach ones or the CGB/CNC Trial that I heard about.

Playing out some historical events (Luthien System Orbital defense for example) would be a lot of fun, even if it was just 1x every 6 months.

One of the things I would say is that you want to keep things fairly balanced of course & also, somewhat limited for any public event.

For Example. 
Using the ASF v/s ASF in Atmosphere event, there were no DS in that battle, and I'm glad, because DS dogfighting in Atmosphere isn't really the norm for DS function.

My only exposure to AT+BT lead me to feel that it's just requiring extra table/map space & slowing the game down.
So really, I'm fine skipping that part of the game for simplicity.

Meanwhile in space, the mix of DS & solo ASFs was fine.
But if WS were in the mix, I would probably say it's best to scale up the battle quite a bit & then use ASF Squadron rules.

So basically just keeping things limited to 1-2 types of "unit knowledge" at a time.

I wouldn't recommend having a battle right on top of a planet, where the gravity arrows were in play.

As complex & diverse as the AT game can be, I'd want to focus on 3 distinct uses.

1.  Air Support Tokens from BMM
2.  ASF dogfighting in Atmosphere.
3.  "Deep" Space fleet engagements.

But I think those 3 things could all provide for some great scenarios & game play while keeping out some of the more complex interactions that the game allows.

Sort of like avoiding using weather & special terrain from TacOps in my BT games.   (It's cool for a special 1-off but not something I want to see every week)
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

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 39934
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #151 on: 13 July 2024, 20:44:41 »
I hope Weirdo sees your post! :)

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11225
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #152 on: 14 July 2024, 02:52:17 »
I have tried introducing classic aerotech a couple of times, with me supplying all the minis & maps.
Dueling, as in ASF vs ASF goes quite well, players are willing to do it now and again when they have extra time.
However people didn't like the massive play surfaces that were required for actual classic capital scale ships. Players were not interesting in trying that out more than one time.

so, would you say that the Aerospace fighter rules work pretty well then, but there's a scaling issue with the bigger ships?
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7344
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #153 on: 14 July 2024, 04:25:08 »
so, would you say that the Aerospace fighter rules work pretty well then, but there's a scaling issue with the bigger ships?
Pretty much that, classic capital scale looks good in massive dioramas, but is not practical for actually playing it.
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

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2022
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #154 on: 14 July 2024, 19:05:47 »
The alpha strike rules handle capital scale much better then classic rules do.  Like, I have done a few naval games, and we straight up played it incorrectly.  The actual way you are supposed to resolve stuff, with the capital damage divisors and SI divisors and all, and lots and lots of hit rolls fishing for 12s for crits, is very different from what I remember playing back when I first cracked open my battlespace box set.  It wasnt until the bot in megamek could do aero that I saw how things 'should' look, and was able to play more games of battlespace.

Capital squadron fighters makes things simpler, but also massively boosts the power level of fighters.  Capital fighters being so much stronger in classic then normal fighters was such a shock to me, I put up a post on the forums about it.  I dont think its a great way to handle aerospace and warships together.

The alpha strike rules already divide damage by 10, so are much better at integrating the capital scale stuff.  It simplifies the crazy bays and locations and such to the point of 2 warships clashing being a quick decisive affair, allowing you to play with more then 1 warship.  The Mckenna, for example, has a broadside of 261 at long range, 443 armor 95 structure, and a threshold of 37.  Resolving an attack is one hit roll, 1 crit roll.  Now, in classic, the same mckenna in the side has 4 FLS, 3 broadside, 3 RLS, so there is fiddling with lining up weapons more (but in the end all 3 bays do line up, so its not like having 8 firing arcs is that useful), and resolving the attacks is 6-10 rolls, with the same amount of crit rolls.  And the mckenna is one of the simpler ships, as it doesnt have as many bays of standard weapons as many newer ships like a Thera with 7 FLS weapons bays, 2 point defense bays, and a capital missile bay in just the first of 3 side locations.

The only issue with the alpha strike rules I have for playing is that I really want better squadron rules.  Battleforce has squadron rules, and fits the scope of a warship fleet v warship fleet action, but doesnt have as much support.  Even the alpha strike rules cards for warships is not current, but I do believe the alpha strike warship cards are the most recent printing of warship specific 'things' we have had right?

I posited a 'space battle matched play' mission type of alpha strike a while back.  For a 2000 point alpha strike level space game I settled on 0-4 squadrons of fighters/small craft, 3-6 squadrons of dropships, and 0-1 warship squadrons for the 'base level' game.  The squadron rules were the simple battleforce ones, where every unit can be selected to be shot, but I made some suggestions such as units must be identical within squadrons + damage rollover, to make record keeping easier.  By forcing the squadrons in such a way, you only end up with 10-11 maneuver elements max, which for alpha strike feels about right.  So if you go fighter heavy, well its still just 4 maneuver elements of fighters, you just have bigger stacks of fighters (and thus smaller stacks of dropships, or no warship, ect). 

The basic mission was attacker/defender, where if you were the attacker you scored points for delivering cargo to the target hex (probably a planet), 1 point per mech or 1k tons listed as ck# on the aerospace cards.  The defender gets 1 point for every point of transport they destroy.  In pitched battles, both sides are trying to destroy each others cargo to win the attrition/resource war (no planet to deposit cargo in that mission), and in relief missions both sides are trying to get cargo to a planet/hex, the side who puts the most cargo on the planet winning.

Anyway, thats the aerospace game on the table that I play nowadays/am willing to play.  All alpha strike, set limits on maneuver elements to prevent the 'unit activation bloat', and only 0-1 kind of warship in the base game size of 2000 PV.  With my missions being cargo mission objectives, the 'escort' warship is valuable, as getting that many ktons of cargo above a planet is a lot of points, and likewise LOSING the warship is a massive blow to the victory points.  The clan vincent 42, for example, is 92 ktons of transport, so if a vincent gets in orbit of an enemy planet it earns the attacker a lot of points, compared to a mule at 8 ktons of cargo--but again, LOSING the vincent is likewise a massive blow, making the escort warships exciting centerpieces at my scale in alpha strike.  The gametype was built so that you dont need the big warships at all, representing a 'normal' naval engagement.  I posted sample fleets somewhere, but the 'basic' inner sphere fleet was like a squadron of Leopard CVs, a titan, some avengers, and the mission critical point getters were dropship groups--mules and unions.  4 aerospace stacks.  The clan counterpart was a vincent, with 3 dropship groups and fighter stacks.  Fighters still tend to be the focus, but by hard forcing them into 4 groups they dont make the rest of the game unplayable at 2k points, and with damage roll over in squadrons its not a massive painful grind.  Without hard forcing fighters into 4 stacks, the fighter squadrons are just so many maneuver elements that the game was unplayable on the tabletop.  The recommended squadron sizes were just woefully too small, leading to my '4 stack' limit for the smallest 2k games.

If you dont want to use the alpha strike rules, then honestly good luck.  1 Warship v Warship is fine, but you kinda have to bend over backwards making excuses for not using the 50+ fighters/dropships many warships just come with.  And if you do use the integrated support stuff that comes with warships, then those elements almost instantly take over the majority of the game time.  Even in squadrons of 6, the 10 squadrons you get out of 1 mckenna makes a 'mckenna versus mckenna' fight instantly take 10x or more time to resolve in classic rules, and the capital fighters rules make said fighters super deadly, which quickly undercuts the warship v warship action.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11225
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #155 on: 14 July 2024, 20:33:10 »
Okay, now, Without changing the rules (or without making significant changes) would an Alpha-strike naval tourney work out in you view?  Would you play in it?
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2022
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #156 on: 14 July 2024, 22:54:13 »
Well, first 'picking' the rules is a challenge.  Just putting models on a game board is 'changing the rules' in alpha strike space combat, as the rulebook leads with 'here is the radar map'. 

But yes, if an alpha strike space tournament format (which, by default, must change rules to accommodate tournament play anyway) had a cohesive packet WITH OTHER PLAYERS, I would play in it.  There is only one person in my shop who is a fan of space combat stuff though, and he wants me to learn full thrust instead, but he would play that AS aerospace game if it existed if I asked.

Edit: this is in stark contrast to classic 'battlespace', which can not support a tournament format to the same degree.  It is too cumbersome, too slow.  Alpha strike plays fast enough, and the play space for 'normal' alpha strike is just a table with a tape measure, but like I outlined above you still need 'force organization rules' to have any kind of tournament in the first place-- like classic this must involve points limit, unit types and unit count limits, a mission people will play that is repeatable on multiple tables, ect.
« Last Edit: 14 July 2024, 23:01:59 by DevianID »

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14341
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #157 on: 14 July 2024, 23:20:18 »
Just putting models on a game board is 'changing the rules' in alpha strike space combat, as the rulebook leads with 'here is the radar map'.   

Wait you lost me.

The Warships use the Ground Support Radar Map?    (I might be confused here)

The AS version of Battlespace,  BattleFace I think someone called it,  doesn't use a big black space map?

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

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2022
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #158 on: 14 July 2024, 23:58:15 »
Quote
The AS version of Battlespace,  BattleFace I think someone called it,  doesn't use a big black space map?

So, in the current alpha strike rules (commander edition), aerospace draw lines on the map, but dont have a map of their own (no black space map).  Also, no warships in the current AS:CE

In the older alpha strike companion, which has warships, aerospace v aerospace for alpha strike has the radar map or space version of the radar map, again no black aerospace map.  Most of those rules are now part of strategic battle force, first found in interstellar operations, no longer being a part of alpha strike in 'commander edition'.

Its possible there was mention of a black aerospace map in the 2013 Alpha Strike book, but as it was replaced with commanders edition and I didnt buy it, I cant check.  I know my old Strategic Operations book had ranges and was played on a map with the Warships and Fighters and such, and that was the precursor to alpha strike.  I think they removed most of the 'alpha strike' from warships because alpha strike doesnt use squadrons, but warships need squadrons, hence why the rules were moved from Alpha Strike Companion to 'Strategic Battle Force', which uses the stats right from the Alpha strike card for its warship points.
« Last Edit: 15 July 2024, 00:22:59 by DevianID »

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41427
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #159 on: 15 July 2024, 07:52:30 »
Wait you lost me.

The Warships use the Ground Support Radar Map?    (I might be confused here)

The AS version of Battlespace,  BattleFace I think someone called it,  doesn't use a big black space map?

BattleFace refers to space combat as published in Battleforce. Same stats as Alpha Strike, but it actually does use the big black space map instead of one of the radar maps.

Alpha Strike itself *only* uses radar maps.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

The Eagle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2383
  • This is what peak performance looks like!
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #160 on: 15 July 2024, 10:24:41 »
I would love to play WarShip engagements in a vaguely Battlefleet Gothic kind of way.  I want a game, not a simulator.  So if the BattleFace or AS or whatever variant ruleset of "deep space aerospace engagement rules" for BattleTech most closely aligns with that example, I would indeed buy models, buy rules, play the game, and play in a tournament for it.
RIP Dan Schulz, 09 November 2009.  May the Albatross ever fly high.

Hit me up for BattleTech in the WV Panhandle!

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14341
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #161 on: 17 July 2024, 12:48:29 »
BattleFace refers to space combat as published in Battleforce. Same stats as Alpha Strike, but it actually does use the big black space map instead of one of the radar maps.

Alpha Strike itself *only* uses radar maps.

Thank you Weirdo,  that is what I was remembering you & others talking about then :)

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

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11225
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #162 on: 18 July 2024, 22:32:38 »
Next stupid question:

Scenario Design.

What is the 'best case' use for a light warship-based solely on the rules as they currently stand in common usage. (aka if it's a 'house rule' it's one of the options from the books, or is one so commonly used you can plop it on a convention table without more than five minutes to explain it and most players will accept it.)

We KNOW bigger warships are more optimized, what I'm looking for, are scenarios that can be built to make smaller warships fun to play.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2022
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #163 on: 18 July 2024, 22:59:00 »
My scenarios, that I mentioned above, is:
Type 1 Attacker/Defender.  The Attacker has to get points to a target hex.  They get 1 point for every mech transport/2 heavy vee/4 light vee, and 1 point for every 1k tons of cargo.  The defender gets 1 point for every one of the attackers victory points they destroy.
Type 2 Clash/intercept.  Both sides are seeking to cripple the opponents cargo/logistics.  Both sides earn 1 point for each mech/1k ton cargo they destroy in deep space.
Type 3 Relief/king of the planet.  Both sides are seeking to get as much onto a central location as possible.  1 point for each mech/1k ton of cargo you can put onto the planet zone.

This, combined with my formation limits, means that small warships are very valuable when the core unit is a dropship (in strategic battleforce you only get 1 warship in a formation, the rest must be dropships/fighters).  A Vincent that gets above a planet is worth a ton of points.  A full on gun loaded warship with little cargo/transport, on the other hand, isnt worth very much for winning the mission, but it can crack enemy dropships in half that are worth points.

This is for 2k points, alpha strike point values.  Technically since formations are used to keep dropships and fighters manageable, this is a kind of battleforce/strategic battleforce game mode, as alpha strike doesnt support warships as previously discussed.
Enough PV that you can afford take most warships, but not the giant battleships, and cargo/transport is the core victory point mechanic.  In normal alpha strike, controlling a point often done with the most total 'size' on the objective, but using cargo/transport in place of 'size' makes more sense to me.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14341
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #164 on: 18 July 2024, 23:18:16 »
We KNOW bigger warships are more optimized, what I'm looking for, are scenarios that can be built to make smaller warships fun to play.

Easy, acknowledge that there is a finite # of warships in the IS, and even more so, BIG warships.

The reality is, something like a McKenna/Lev-II should almost never be in a scenario just due to sheer RARITY.

So the best place for a small warship IMO is if your playing a naval fight where only 1 side has a Warship.

Giving someone a Black Lion v/s a DS fleet is just asking for a score of dead DS.

BUT, giving someone a Fox & 5 DS v/s a fleet of 10-20 enemy DS is a viable game, I would think anyway.

Especially something like the Luzerne fight from Op:Bulldog that was a "breakthrough" scenario basically.

IIRC that was Congress/Lola/+ a few DS v/s SovSoy & a bunch of DS & ASF but many of the DS were the troop carriers.

Well scale that back to something you could find on any of 4 borders w/ a FCA nation.
Fox + 5 DS blocking the path to a planet.  (Vengeance, Claymore, Avenger, Intruder, Overlord-A3)
Enemy CoK JSs arrive and detach a fleet of DS lead by 10-ish Assault/PWS/Carrier ships and 10-ish Transports.

Goal is to inflict damage on defending fleet but more importantly distract them as the 2nd wave is all troops who will have to blast past them & get off the end of the board.

If that is just too big of a fight, remove the 5 DS from the Fox & an equivalent 5+5 from the attackers & just have a single Fox trying to block off 10 DS
But honestly, I feel like just having 1 ship would be a bit boring for the Fox player.
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

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41427
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #165 on: 19 July 2024, 08:02:08 »
BUT, giving someone a Fox & 5 DS v/s a fleet of 10-20 enemy DS is a viable game, I would think anyway.

Especially something like the Luzerne fight from Op:Bulldog that was a "breakthrough" scenario basically.

IIRC that was Congress/Lola/+ a few DS v/s SovSoy & a bunch of DS & ASF but many of the DS were the troop carriers.

Very much this. Put a Zechetinu, Fox, or Pinto in the role of the bully, make it the big fish in the pond and must contend with a number of smaller opponents, both DropShips and fighters.

You can play a breakthrough scenario as described above with a group of DropShips trying to get past the WarShip and its escorts, or maybe reverse it and make your WarShip the escort for a wave of troop ships and it must punch a hole through a screen of combat Droppers for its charges to go through.

Another scenario might be a search and destroy mission, where the WarShip must investigate a large number of asteroids because one is a hostile base, like a pirate sanctuary or something. It is hidden, so the WarShip is advised to deploy fighters, shuttles, etc, to search as quickly as possible. On turn X, the occupants of the base have finished their evac procedures and flee the base, with the objective of getting as many DropShips and shuttles off the map as possible.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41427
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #166 on: 19 July 2024, 08:20:30 »
A variation on the breakthrough escort scenario could see our small WarShip guarding a convoy of JumpShips and cargo DropShips - due to stretched resources, the only combat craft the defenders get are the Warship and any non-Dropper craft it carries.

Worse news - thanks to spies and turncoats, your enemy knows this and has launched a long-range attack from very distant carriers consisting of a wave of boarding pods and attack shuttles, all craft able to fly in from beyond regular sensor range, and many loaded to the brim with marines.

Victory conditions are simple: Whoever controls the most JumpShips at the end of the game wins. Despite local conditions, the overall situation is NOT one where the defender would be desperate enough to destroy their own ships to deny them to the other side.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #167 on: 20 July 2024, 03:01:34 »
Next stupid question:

Scenario Design.

What is the 'best case' use for a light warship-based solely on the rules as they currently stand in common usage. (aka if it's a 'house rule' it's one of the options from the books, or is one so commonly used you can plop it on a convention table without more than five minutes to explain it and most players will accept it.)

We KNOW bigger warships are more optimized, what I'm looking for, are scenarios that can be built to make smaller warships fun to play.

I found that the only niche is the carrier role. One 1,250,000 tons ship can have up to 21 doors(1250000 ÷100000 +8 = 12.5 + 8 -> 21) while one 2,500,000 tons ship can have up to 33. So for the same tonnage, many smaller ships have more doors therefore able to handle more ASFs at a time and provides them the faster scramble and rearm.

That means, hilariously, the lightest 100,000 tons ships are the best carrier of its own. Although you should consider the dropships it can carry can also be the carrier of its own as well, but the fighters a warship may handle by itself does matters as well.


Also remember that the repair facility reduces the numbers of collars by a half. It's more waste to reducing up to 25 collars of a 2,500,000 tons warship, than reducing up to 12 collars of a 1,250,000 tons warship.

And although I wonder that there are any fan for this, but the dropshuttle bay is capped to the numbers of armor facing, therefore the 600,000 tons warship is the most efficient mass to handle those.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5060
Re: Are ‘Escort’ Warships Useful?
« Reply #168 on: 27 July 2024, 10:01:41 »
I actually ran all the numbers in my Fleet Doctrine Design thread here using the Industrial Tycoon Handbook's rules. In the post above the one linked I proposed a 1.55 MT Supership that only costs 17.2 Billion c-bills while a 155kt ship costs 5 billion with a more middle range (550kt) ship costing 9 Billion and the 970kt Dreadnought costing 12 Billion.

The concern I have about that is that the design phase lasts the same amount of time no matter the size of the Warship.  Page 36 has the dice rolls for that, but there is no modifier for size of the unit.

1.  Agreed, but, this starts to get into are area we lack info on.  "World Building"
Or more specifically "Shipyard" building.  Not just a single space station.
But the total # of various sizes/types of Space Stations are required for a "Ship Yard"
And for that matter, for the various sizes/capacities of "Ship Yard".

We just don't know if it is Faster/Slower/Cheaper/More Expensive to build any given part/portion of a shipyard to any other given part/portion or if capacity matters really.

2.  I agree the KF costs are bad.   They used to be bad.  With the "Support" costs that were added a while back, they are REALLY BAD.
Again, the thing that should have been changed was the Total Cost Modifier, not the KF itself.
Or perhaps, I should say, they BOTH needed to change & the KF didn't need a big fat flat cost boost the way they did.

3.  If you want go for it, it might trigger some interesting formula/option suggestions.

1) Smaller hulls will be faster to build, so if you need ships in an emergency then you want lots of small ships even if they are more expensive per ton.  Beyond that, you'd have to use real-life examples of sea-going shipyards being produced, and extrapolate from there.  Lots of testing will be needed.

3) I made a thread in Fan Rules - Aerospace with three alternate ideas.  If any of The Powers That Be want to use any of my ideas from it, I only ask that they let me know what book the results will be in so I can purchase it.

What is the 'best case' use for a light warship-based solely on the rules as they currently stand in common usage. (aka if it's a 'house rule' it's one of the options from the books, or is one so commonly used you can plop it on a convention table without more than five minutes to explain it and most players will accept it.)

We KNOW bigger warships are more optimized, what I'm looking for, are scenarios that can be built to make smaller warships fun to play.

Since smaller Warships are more expensive per ton (it is really cheap to take a 100 kton vessel and boost it to 200 ktons), the main goal I can see is blockading a world (vs smugglers, infections, or similar).  You need as many platforms with their own KF capability to enforce the blockade, meaning you have no choice to put as many ships out as possible.  If it is a choice between eleven 100-kton ships or ten 200-kton ships, you have to deploy the 11 to make sure everyone gets spotted.

I found that the only niche is the carrier role. One 1,250,000 tons ship can have up to 21 doors(1250000 ÷100000 +8 = 12.5 + 8 -> 21) while one 2,500,000 tons ship can have up to 33. So for the same tonnage, many smaller ships have more doors therefore able to handle more ASFs at a time and provides them the faster scramble and rearm.

That means, hilariously, the lightest 100,000 tons ships are the best carrier of its own. Although you should consider the dropships it can carry can also be the carrier of its own as well, but the fighters a warship may handle by itself does matters as well.


Also remember that the repair facility reduces the numbers of collars by a half. It's more waste to reducing up to 25 collars of a 2,500,000 tons warship, than reducing up to 12 collars of a 1,250,000 tons warship.

And although I wonder that there are any fan for this, but the dropshuttle bay is capped to the numbers of armor facing, therefore the 600,000 tons warship is the most efficient mass to handle those.

Can you pop over to the Fan designs thread, make a few carriers as you listed here, and calculate their costs per door?  For example the 1.25 MTon vessel will have 21 doors, but what will be the vessel's price?  Similar for the 2.5 MTon carrier with 33 doors.  I would like to see how the cheaper per ton larger KF core affects the cost per carrier door.