Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race

[marcussmythe]

Yes, but what would AC5s even do? They can't damage warships? Meanwhile, using fighters as Point defense is reasonable, but at a limit of 20 guns per fighter, I'll have to have a lot of guns already for that to be more efficient.
High speed engagements might work, but those are mostly just a matter of "who loses less". I think just a plain damage modifier would have been sufficient to balance them.

AC/5s and their ilk cannot damage capital scale armor effectively.  (Alsadius has noted that a thin layer of capital armor does not necessarily imply immunity to AC/20s)
Further, they are able to and have in the past proven devastating against damaged vessels, those with armor removed and innards exposed.  Had the LCN not chosen a ‘worst of both worlds’ figter launch profile that left them unable to keep fighters over the battlespace, then thousands of fighters would have converged on any armor facing depleted by naval autocannon fire - to the rapid destruction of the uncovered vessel.

One cannot turn or roll to hide damaged facings from fighter swarms, after all - and I think we may see a role for fighters, even -absent- carried capital missiles, as flexible, off-ship power projection.  If fighters can be used aggressively to turn damaged-but-still-fighting ships into hard kills, then fighter superiority in the battlespace serves to both multiply your longevity and your effective fire.  Similarly, missiles, even if not worthwhile in an overall sense, might create breif pulses of power that creat such opportunity for fighters.

At the least, I intend to explore this sort of synergy going forward - both in current designs and doctrine and in a (eventual) hybrid vessel designed to pack all those synergies into a single hull - to the detriment, of course, of superiority in any given area.

[marcussmythe]

PS:  Ill have you know that my degenerate high speed engagement designs have -4- missiles per tube. 

Because the rules say missiles fire twice in a high speed engagement.  :)

And I want enough for a second pass.  :) :) :)

[Lagrange]

For the Atago (which is a pretty tough ship) if you half kill it from one arc it exposes structure making ASF fire relevant.   Hence, a battleplan along the lines of marcussmythe's can potentially effectively double the firepower of battleships by leaving half-killed enemy warships for an ASF mopping crew.

[marcussmythe]

For the Atago (which is a pretty tough ship) if you half kill it from one arc it exposes structure making ASF fire relevant.   Hence, a battleplan along the lines of marcussmythe's can potentially effectively double the firepower of battleships by leaving half-killed enemy warships for an ASF mopping crew.

Though at the cost of the capital firepower that could have been carried in the tonnage devoted to ASFs.  That said, ASFs can serve multiple roles, while all a NAC does is make holes in things.

[Lagrange]

Also, does the idea of a bare-bones army budget hold any appeal for you guys? I'll keep the rules dead simple (perhaps 2-3 flat-cost regiment options, JS/DS, Castles Brian, and maintenance for those), but it may deal neatly with the "militia DropShips" issue.

I'm personally open to this.  I've found the appropriate amount of planned regimental transport to be rather ambiguous so this would help.

[Alsadius]

Quick update: The FS-DC battle is mostly written, and will be up tomorrow. The spreadsheet error is one I've actually already fixed, just in the wrong version of the sheet. The master version of CryHavok's sheet has the correct math for fire control weight.

[truetanker]

Cool... would we be able to get an updated budget including both Army and Navy?

TT

[Smegish]

FYI, I retconned the Taurus I v2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) to deal with the fire control bug.   The result is a very minor loss of 162 tons of cargo. 

Looking through the other designs, I suspect:
Design Missing FC
Trojan NL45s https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1436979#msg1436979
Scapha I NAC/10 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1454602#msg1454602
Scapha II AC/5
Akagi NL 35 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442721#msg1442721
Tenshi Capital Missile https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442721#msg1442721
Tate NL 35 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1434886#msg1434886

Been going through mine with the new sheet. The Tate and Akagi can be fixed by removing a little cargo space. I also seem to have used a VERY old version of the sheet for the Akagi (probably cos I based it on the Atago sheet I had prepared way back when we started) and it didn't add the bonus armour from SI, so Akagi armour should be 838, not 760.
The Tenshi actually came out a little underweight somehow, just added a little more cargo rather than do a complete rebuild.

EDIT: after further investigation, some totals on the master sheet are off. When I added my ships in I forgot that the OLD version didn't add SI to the armour total, and I'd added it manually. Atago armour should be listed as 924, not 840. Ship's sheet is right, master page is off, silly me. Also according to the 'new' spreadsheet all of my ship costs are off, though not by huge amounts (other than Tenshi and Onsen, for some reason).

New Prices (Money Saved) - All in Millions
Atago $9,362 ($37)
Akagi $9,016 ($29)
Kutai $6,081 ($10)
Fubuki $7,221 ($20)
Trojan $4,017 ($20)
Minekaze $6,097 ($5)
Tate $4,729 ($5)

Willing to wear the money wasted prior to this turn as a general stuff up, but will adjust my budget for this turn.

And somehow:

Onsen $181 ($270)
Tenshi $155 ($233)

Not sure how that big a change happened. If its okay with everyone else, I will remedy that by doubling the stations I had prior to this turn.

Will inform Maid Marian of the changes to their ships when I've gone over them.
Would advise everyone goes over their old ships in the new sheet, just to make sure, I haven't changed the prices on my ships on the master sheet, or redone my budget yet. Will give everyone a chance to see this first.

[Lagrange]

The CryHavoc master sheet uses an x2 multiplier for stations (wrong) instead of x5 (right). 

As long as we are house cleaning, can we get the passenger quarters cost fixed as well?

[Alsadius]

The station cost multiplier is fixed now for the CryHavok sheet. Smegish, I expect that's the reason for the station cost discrepancies, so re-check and see how it holds up.

FYI, I'll create a fork of the design spreadsheet soon, since I expect I'll want to change the stats on AMS if nothing else. (A proper AMS mount is more likely to be ~100 tons than 0.5 tons, if only to avoid the issue of loading up a billion of them and laughing at a whole weapon class)

Can you remind me what the issue was with passenger quarters costs?

Army budgets and rules haven't been created yet. I'll also need to give you the TO&E for your existing armies at the same time, which is a bit more work. If I decide to do that, I'll want to do it right, so I want to double-check everything when I have some extra time to think. That's gotten way easier the last few days - I sat down to write a battle last night and actually started writing, unlike the last month of being unable to do so - but it'll still be a few days, I expect.

[Lagrange]

FYI, I'll create a fork of the design spreadsheet soon, since I expect I'll want to change the stats on AMS if nothing else. (A proper AMS mount is more likely to be ~100 tons than 0.5 tons, if only to avoid the issue of loading up a billion of them and laughing at a whole weapon class)

I'd somewhat prefer sticking with Battletech rules.   Instead, maybe consider watering down the effectiveness of point defense (which exceeds the battletech norm)?

Can you remind me what the issue was with passenger quarters costs?

SO page 160 (Special Exemption) says that Crew/Passenger Quarters and Infantry Bays/Compartments are free.   SO page 159 (top) says that Crew quarters cost as per TM.   This leaves a rules conflict for crew quarter cost (question here), but there is no rules conflict for Passenger quarters and Infantry Bays/Compartments.  (Note that the cost of life support does remain, regardless so costs do go up with quarters, just slower than they otherwise would.)

[marcussmythe]

Given the proven efficacy of MGs in a Point-Defense role, Im not sure I would invest in AMS at any tonnage.

The purpose of defense is not immunity - no ship is or can be built to sail with impunity, indefinitely, under enemy fire.  The purpose of defense is to buy time for your own offense to be decisive.

A modest investment in Machine Guns has proven sufficient for that purpose - and this investment can be easily scaled up without consuming significant mass fractions of a force.  Also, MGs are dual-role, at least in theory.

As such, either corner-posting with a few 100 MGs, or a few dedicated  escorts with pure MG/LRM (latter AMS/CERPPS) armament should be sufficient to obviate any missile or carrier based strategy.

In the alternate, we can perhaps assume that over Vega ‘something strange’ happened, and thus Vega has no value as precedent.  Perhaps the dice were actually 1:1:1 and 10:10:10.  Or the Lyran Missiles, like WW2 British Naval Rifle Shells, failed to detonate on impact.

[Alsadius]

That kind of change to AMS stats would be paired with an eventual nerf to the effectiveness of MGs as tech improves. I don't want any strategy to become the obvious approach, and it's becoming clear that "just pile thousands of MGs onto your ships" is getting to be too strong, so I'm setting things up now to ensure that such a strategy can't just stay dominant forever. I did the same thing at the beginning, when I changed AMS and fighter rules substantially, and again when I tried to shake up the 3/5 150SI meta by uncapping SI and allowing fractional thrust. I'm keeping an eye out for any need to do that again going forward, and I think MGs are in need of that treatment.

Also, your recent four-corners design is good reason to give a reminder of what I said at the beginning of this thread. Four corner designs are legal, but they're not as good here as they would be on tabletop. There are holes in your fields of fire, and those holes will be exploited by enemies who have the skill to do so successfully. It may well be a good trade-off, but I wanted to remind you that it is a trade-off.

I'd somewhat prefer sticking with Battletech rules. Instead, maybe consider watering down the effectiveness of point defense (which exceeds the battletech norm)?

That sounds like a very, very bad idea. For one, the current rules are actually much less effective than BT standard, at least in the AMS era - 14 AMS mounts with sufficient ammo could shoot down an entire fleet's worth of missiles under tabletop rules. (They're better than tabletop MGs at PD by a fair margin, but that was a necessary change to avoid missiles being unstoppable in this era.) For two, missile density in this setting is orders of magnitude heavier than in tabletop. I doubt anyone in the entire history of tabletop WarShip combat has ever resolved more than a thousand missiles in a turn. A typical battle will have a few dozen tubes on each side. Conversely, we have thousands of missiles hitting at once.

If our MGs were as bad as TT MGs, Smegish would have lost his entire fleet in about thirty seconds this turn. Hell, even with improved MGs the battle wasn't too far from that - before I remembered the DropShips existed, the damage inflicted was so severe that even closing to gun range wouldn't have been a serious threat to Marcus, meaning he could safely play matador until the whole fleet was in ruins. And that's with only 2/3 of his ships in the same place, and with him losing the die rolls. There's no way on earth I'm weakening PD in a game where thousands of missiles can launch in a single salvo.

[marcussmythe]

...and I think MGs are in need of that treatment.

Also, your recent four-corners design is good reason to give a reminder of what I said at the beginning of this thread. Four corner designs are legal, but they're not as good here as they would be on tabletop. There are holes in your fields of fire, and those holes will be exploited by enemies who have the skill to do so successfully. It may well be a good trade-off, but I wanted to remind you that it is a trade-off.

1.) Even if MGs specifically (as well as Militia Dropships) are 'reinvisioned' in efficacy post-Battle of Vega, my IC perspectives can only be based on IC information.  All they can do is respond to the environment they find themselves in, and if the football moves, well, they'll kick at it and miss.  Even if MGs get taken out behind the woodshed, Im relying on an additional defensive layer of small craft and fighters to help with defense - note that Walkurie is not being decommissioned (though they will be DEEMPHASIZED - until or unless events indicate that the missile/fighter environment has become friendlier to CVs and CGs)

2.)  I'm aware of the drawbacks of a four corners approach.  Inasmuch as Buri is meant to operate as part of a fleet (mutual interlocking fields of fire, mutual support, etc.), greater WEIGHT of fire was prioritized over more even distribution of fire - a solo operator would be built rather differently.  I try to envision these vessels as more like WWI/II naval vessels, each having a job (or maybe more than one) in a unit - rather than something like the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, which usually operates unsupported and so must fill every role that might be demanded of it.

[Lagrange]

For one, the current rules are actually much less effective than BT standard, at least in the AMS era - 14 AMS mounts with sufficient ammo could shoot down an entire fleet's worth of missiles under tabletop rules.

I'm skeptical about this.  Those 14 AMS's require 7 double heat sinks and a ton of ammo for every missile, so against a 2000 incoming missiles they need 16000 tons of heat sink & ammo.   In comparison, investing in 1000 AMS (as double-strength MGs under house rules) together with 500 double heat sinks + ammo weighs somewhat less than 2000 tons.   There is a cost increase with the house rules here but also a weight decrease.

If our MGs were as bad as TT MGs, Smegish would have lost his entire fleet in about thirty seconds this turn.

Sure, with essentially naked designs as per the Atago.  On the other hand, there is quite a bit of room for design to compensate.  Every ASF could have 20 MGs and there is no reason you couldn't stack a couple thousand in a warship arc.

[Alsadius]

Marcus: Fair, and I figured you knew. The fleet composition argument makes a lot of sense here as well. It's one I want to re-emphasize occasionally just to be sure.

Lagrange: You're generally carrying heat sinks with you even before you worry about AMS. If you need to tank an entire fleet of fighters, you just refrain from firing your main battery that round. It won't get you all the way to the necessary firepower to stop a really huge attack(even the Leviathan III only sinks 20,000 heat), but most capital ships will sink several thousand heat a turn. That's at least several hundred missiles stopped by a single ship, which is far more than we can do here. 

[Lagrange]

Lagrange: You're generally carrying heat sinks with you even before you worry about AMS.

That's fair.  The two worries would be:
(a) Combined ops as per the new LC doctrine seems like a soft counter.  Shutting down your big guns for a round in the middle of a battleship fight has some serious consequences when broadsides kill ships.
(b) I'm a little hazy on the order of operations.  If you shoot your big guns and then the other side shoots its missiles, what happens?  And if you avoid shooting your big guns because the other side _might_ shoot their missiles, that seems like a great way to defang a battleship.

That's at least several hundred missiles stopped by a single ship, which is far more than we can do here.

Err...  There's a design that I'm considering for the TC...

[marcussmythe]

That's fair.  The two worries would be:
(a) Combined ops as per the new LC doctrine seems like a soft counter.  Shutting down your big guns for a round in the middle of a battleship fight has some serious consequences when broadsides kill ships.
(b) I'm a little hazy on the order of operations.  If you shoot your big guns and then the other side shoots its missiles, what happens?  And if you avoid shooting your big guns because the other side _might_ shoot their missiles, that seems like a great way to defang a battleship. Err...  There's a design that I'm considering for the TC...

I think synergy and overwhelming the enemy force's ability to address threats is the biggest lesson learned at Vega.  The response to a missile wave is different than the response to a fighter close assault is different than the response to boarders is different than the response to an enemy line of battle at long range with NPPCs/Lasers is different than the response to a NAC CQB.  Given the failure of going 'all in' on a single dimension (even if this failure was predicated on one-off conditions that may not obtain in future - IE dice rolls, NL Arcs, MG effectiveness changes, etc.), I think I'm going to be looking at ways to present multiple, varying threat axis simultaneously.

[Alsadius]

Here are some very tentative army rules for your commentary.

The only army units considered are regiments, DS/JS, and eventually Castles Brian. A regiment is nominally 144 vehicles or equivalent, though don't take this too literally(there are support elements, under-strength units, etc., etc., etc.). A regiment requires 9 small DropShips(and 3 JS) or 3 medium DropShips(and 1 JS) to carry it between systems. Additional lift capability will be used for logistics - as a rule of thumb, an additional 1/3 of the listed JS/DS strength will supply a force for a typical campaign.

Four regiment types exist:
- Garrison. Cost = $100m, combat power 1
- Vehicle. Cost = $300m, combat power 2
- Aero. Cost = $800m, combat power 2 (but can fight in space)
- Mech(when tech exists). Cost = $800m, combat power 3.

The obvious implication is that you'll want high-tech units for your spearhead, to economize on transit costs, but to replace them with garrison forces when the fighting calms down and you have the lift capacity available. (Lift capacity is the costly part - it's $4.2B to carry a regiment with current tech, or $2B with medium DS - but in principle your lift capacity should not be getting ground up by losses during invasion combat). And yes, combat power is just a simple add-them-all-up value - I want to keep this really simple, to avoid additional bogging down.

I drew up a hypothetical Great Power circa 2410 to get a sense of what their forces might look like. Out of a total 200 planets:
- 40 minor border worlds. 3 garrison, 1 vehicle, 1 aero each. (Power = 7)
- 10 important border worlds. 5 garrison, 2 vehicle, 3 aero each. (Power = 15)
- 40 important economic worlds. 3 garrison, 1 vehicle, 3 aero each. (Power = 11)
- 10 key worlds. 10 garrison, 5 vehicle, 5 aero each. (Power = 30)
- 100 backwater worlds. 1 garrison each. (Power = 1)
- 4 offensive fleets. 5 vehicle, 5 aero, 120 small DS, 40 JS each. (Power = 20)
TOTAL = 490 garrison, 170 vehicle, 260 aero, 480 small DS, 160 JS. Maintenance cost = $53.2B/turn.

Questions
- Is this balanced?
- Is this interesting?
- How freely should forces be able to move back and forth between Army and Navy?
- Should Army research budgets be a thing?
- Should Army budgets simply be equal to Navy budgets, or set separately? (Or should I merge both budgets together and let you split them up as you see fit?)

[marcussmythe]

Here are some very tentative army rules for your commentary.

The only army units considered are regiments, DS/JS, and eventually Castles Brian. A regiment is nominally 144 vehicles or equivalent, though don't take this too literally(there are support elements, under-strength units, etc., etc., etc.). A regiment requires 9 small DropShips(and 3 JS) or 3 medium DropShips(and 1 JS) to carry it between systems. Additional lift capability will be used for logistics - as a rule of thumb, an additional 1/3 of the listed JS/DS strength will supply a force for a typical campaign.

Four regiment types exist:
- Garrison. Cost = $100m, combat power 1
- Vehicle. Cost = $300m, combat power 2
- Aero. Cost = $800m, combat power 2 (but can fight in space)
- Mech(when tech exists). Cost = $800m, combat power 3.

The obvious implication is that you'll want high-tech units for your spearhead, to economize on transit costs, but to replace them with garrison forces when the fighting calms down and you have the lift capacity available. (Lift capacity is the costly part - it's $4.2B to carry a regiment with current tech, or $2B with medium DS - but in principle your lift capacity should not be getting ground up by losses during invasion combat). And yes, combat power is just a simple add-them-all-up value - I want to keep this really simple, to avoid additional bogging down.

I drew up a hypothetical Great Power circa 2410 to get a sense of what their forces might look like. Out of a total 200 planets:
- 40 minor border worlds. 3 garrison, 1 vehicle, 1 aero each. (Power = 7)
- 10 important border worlds. 5 garrison, 2 vehicle, 3 aero each. (Power = 15)
- 40 important economic worlds. 3 garrison, 1 vehicle, 3 aero each. (Power = 11)
- 10 key worlds. 10 garrison, 5 vehicle, 5 aero each. (Power = 30)
- 100 backwater worlds. 1 garrison each. (Power = 1)
- 4 offensive fleets. 5 vehicle, 5 aero, 120 small DS, 40 JS each. (Power = 20)
TOTAL = 490 garrison, 170 vehicle, 260 aero, 480 small DS, 160 JS. Maintenance cost = $53.2B/turn.

Questions
- Is this balanced?
- Is this interesting?
- How freely should forces be able to move back and forth between Army and Navy?
- Should Army research budgets be a thing?
- Should Army budgets simply be equal to Navy budgets, or set separately? (Or should I merge both budgets together and let you split them up as you see fit?)

I can work with this.  I think best not be implemented until weve had a turn or two under the new tech rules under our belt.  1 thing at a time - and the new research budget adds a lot of complexity. 

I find it.. interesting enough.  No clue as to balance.

I dont see a need for separate army research budget - we can sweep it up in the navy budget.

I dont mind Naval forces being used to supplement ground forces, but I dont think Ground forces should be of any use to the Navy forces.  At all.  Ever.  IE, if you budget for dropships, for transport, they should NOT provide a Vega repeat - and their loss should have some impact on your ability to continue to prosecute Army objectives.  Otherwise, we are going to tend to, consciously or unconsciously, rob the army to pay the navy... and those who do so will be advantaged against those who do not... and it will be off to the races.

I will acknowledge that for my own part, budget change or not, It has been my intention (time allowing) to build transports (though my paradigm was based on a warship transport, and carriage of mechs/vehicles/infantry to ground via small craft, rather than dropships)

[Smegish]

I'm quite happy to leave this as just a Naval Race and leave the army alone. Turns have been slow enough as it is.

[Lagrange]

I'm a bit concerned.

1) The Jumpship/Dropship approach doesn't fit with TC doctrine which is built around the Taurus I and smallcraft.  I've already invested in the smallcraft necessary for 2 regiments (i.e. 216 Skyfall assault shuttles) of armor and a redesign of the Taurus I to transport up to 2 regiments of armor per Taurus I.  Hence, the TC fleet (5 Taurus Is) configured for a land invasion can bring 7 regiments of armor (5 of which are stored as cargo, with all personnel quartered) and land 2 regiments/wave.  They also have 3 regiments of ground troops (simultaneously landable), and 6 regiments of ASF providing fighter cover. 

2) The Jumpship/Dropship approach is quite vulnerable.  Dropships, by their nature, are priority targets entering combat zones.  The idea that they won't suffer serious losses in combat strains credibility.   Jumpships are less vulnerable if used conservatively (i.e. jumping many AU away from the primary).  Doing that however increases the timeline for an assault notably.  If used aggressively (i.e. pirate jump points), they are obvious priority targets.  Edit: My thought here is that a mandated jumpship basis for invasion transport devalues dropcollars on warships. 

3) I'm also unclear on what the plan is for something like the TC which apparently has 200 worlds but a much smaller budget.

Overall, I'm kind of leaning towards 'avoid' at the moment as Smegish suggests.

There is a question of responsibilities which we are grappling with.  I think it would be simpler to just say "if it can be or is spaceborn, then it's the navy's responsibility".  Then Alsadius can just provide some quantification of how many regiments of land forces can use transport for each power as well as what transport-related losses are associated with any combat.   The navy can choose to provide for transport or not, and can choose to have garrison ASF forces or not (The TC navy has already built ASF garrisons on every world, although in notably smaller strength than suggested here.)   Presumably a lack of garrison ASF forces makes worlds more vulnerable to invasion and lack of transport makes an invasion (or counter-invasion) process more difficult.  Impressed civilian dropships and jumpships are feasible on an emergency basis, but they are hideously vulnerable in a war zone often leading to significant loss of transported elements and presumably some economic impact.  Overall, this seems simpler and more inline with the original premise.

[truetanker]

I'm a bit concerned.

3) I'm also unclear on what the plan is for something like the TC which apparently has 200 worlds but a much smaller budget.

I though the same when I started playing Marian Hegemony. I'd assumed I was leading nine planets, I wasn't. I had started off with one, Alphard only. Same as you, you own Taurus only and no other planet system as of this time. I conquered others so I have four known systems. The others got theirs by default as they had already conquered / colonized multiple systems by the start of our little game.

I had to work for mine... so I'd do the same in your region. Pick your target system and prepare for a turn or two of uneasiness, then they'll fall in. The more you get the more you'll have... also you currently have one Class-I Yard so can only build up to 2x 250K warships a turn... I know, I'm in the same boat... though you do have those Yardships...

IC: " By the way... wanna sell us one? ", Marian Hegemony Ambassador to the Taurus Confederation, " we can offer a good lucrative deal... "

TT

[marcussmythe]

On further reflection, while Im not unwilling to do as the GM suggests, I fear that an additional layer would only consume time and diffuse focus.


Suggest instead:
1.)  Players may build ‘naval’ military transport assets as desire and budget allow.
2.)  Presence of such assets increases chance of invasions, counter invasions, etc. being successful.
3.)  Absence of such assets requires the army to commandeer civilian transport on its own.  This should reduce the ability to successfully capture territory.
4.)  Failure to spend money on such assets should result in having to husband defenseless, fragile, crazy civilian captains and army commanders that wont follow naval orders.  These vessels need to not be a decisive battle advantage, but in all fashions and at all times a detriment - so that we have incentive to build them, rather than relying on -not- buying them to give us a free ship military advantage.

Basically formalizing whats been done so far, but with ‘failure to build spacelift’ made officially and formally a drawback, rather than a bug - become - feature.

I fear turning this into the ‘Succession Wars’ game, complete with all those little card counters.  :)

[truetanker]

Hey I love those lil' counters, where every other planet gets a permanent fire and smoke chit during the first and second SW phases!  >:D

I'll bring the Marshmellows!
 :brew:

TT

[Lagrange]

Same as you, you own Taurus only and no other planet system as of this time. I conquered others so I have four known systems. The others got theirs by default as they had already conquered / colonized multiple systems by the start of our little game.

There is an asymmetry---the Taurian Concordat existed at game start while the Marian Hegemony did not.  This for example is part of a Taurian Concordat map in 2366.  Hence, the TC is in the 'got theirs by default' category, although I frankly had not realized how many planets they had initially, nor how large their navy became by the time of the Reunification War (~2570).  See here:

The Concordat Navy was larger than any other bar the Terran Hegemony's, with 127 WarShips, thousands of JumpShips and DropShips, and many squadrons of Aerospace Fighters.

I'm not at all clear on whether we'll get there, but the appropriate focus of the TCN is on holding and effectively defending the large number of thinly populated systems they already have.

[truetanker]

Also this is an AU...

So there's that...

But I do see your point... have you considered that these could be a mutual protection pact, much like the UHC, rather than a straight " we're one "?

TT

[Lagrange]

But I do see your point... have you considered that these could be a mutual protection pact, much like the UHC, rather than a straight " we're one "?

It doesn't matter from the viewpoint of the TCN.  The Navy is there to protect everyone.

[Alsadius]

Turn 6 is finally done! https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1452784#msg1452784 - the battle in 2402 is the final part of the turn.

Re the army discussion, you all raise good points regarding non-standard transport options. Those have to be viable, whether it's a Tick/Mother, a Potemkin, or something else entirely. Any worthwhile system will need to allow for those without putting up artificial budgetary walls. That tells me that merged Army/Navy budgets might actually be the right call if we do this, but that would change the game a fair bit. This is why I raised it as a possibility, instead of just announcing it, so thanks for the feedback.

Regarding defences for the Taurians, remember that the force list I gave was a fairly offensively-minded one. The same total weight of defences could be had for $12.7B/turn upkeep if it's entirely composed of garrison troopers with no lift capability(to pick an extreme example), and that's a ~75% savings.

At a minimum, I'm going to be thinking this way when I write battle reports in the future. You'll notice that in 2402, the JumpShips were commanded by a Colonel - that was the first outward sign of this mindset. I decided not to change the rules effect of anything yet, so the transport force losses were suffered by the Navy budget as before, but I might change that down the line. I think that the forces I've listed in most previous battles are reasonable for Army troops, meaning that the "militia" argument might need to get retconned.

The downside of this approach is that those are going to be true military ships that you don't need to pay for, so they will act as free force multipliers. Given that this is what's been causing the controversy, I'm not sure how well that will work. More thought is definitely needed here.

[Lagrange]

Impressive---the first real yard destruction I've seen.

W.r.t. Militia/Army, if the aerospace portions of budgets/assets need to be transferred to the navy for a cleaner delimitation of responsibilities, that's not unheard of. 

When you get a chance, can you answer the TC questions?  I should be able to finish my turn reasonably soon with the answers.

Oh, and: are the worksheet changes finalized?