Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race

[truetanker]

Most likely you'll have to compensate the civies for their " Emergency " usages, but that should fall under standard procedures of procurements. At least pay half cost for a new dropper to appease them? With the future promise of " In case of " again.

Thoughts?

TT

PS: Same for jumpers too?

[Vition2]

If I were to math out that battle, based on what has been mentioned previously in this thread, I think the results were pretty close to my expectations.  With a bunch of assumptions I calculated that roughly 5800 anti-shipping missiles were fired, but with a (albeit low) miss chance and point defense from just SC and Warships, the actual hits drop down to ~1400 (I calculated PD at a 1:1 ratio overall, so it might be high).  It takes roughly 280 missiles to outright destroy an Atago, 194 for a Minekaze, and 115 for a Tate (calculated using 1/3rd total armor plus IS) - rolling could potentially increase this, crit potential from ASF carried missiles is small enough to not significantly decrease these numbers, only by maybe 4%.  So I could fairly easily see most of the missiles targeted at the three primarily damaged Atagos and a Tate spoiling the attack runs of a fourth target.  This takes care of roughly 800-900 missiles, with the rest spread among every target, at roughly 32 per remaining target, you aren't going to see significant damage without a fair bit of luck.

What remains has a fairly significant firepower and armor advantage and maneuverability over the Lyran "wall" fleet, on the order of 50% more potential firepower and nearly double the armor (yes even after the missile damage is removed, this was roughly 3500 vs. 6300 armor). 

[Lagrange]

If I were to math out that battle, based on what has been mentioned previously in this thread, I think the results were pretty close to my expectations.  With a bunch of assumptions I calculated that roughly 5800 anti-shipping missiles were fired, but with a (albeit low) miss chance and point defense from just SC and Warships, the actual hits drop down to ~1400 (I calculated PD at a 1:1 ratio overall, so it might be high). 

Offboard point defense was established as much less effective so you should (essentially) divide your point defense by 4 as virtually all of it is offboard.  Hence, many more missiles hit.   (In any case, the narrative said half hit which would be significantly more than 1400.)

It takes roughly 280 missiles to outright destroy an Atago,

280 killers whales = 1120 capital damage.  That's enough to take out the armor, take out the SI, and then take out the armor on the other side.

194 for a Minekaze, and 115 for a Tate (calculated using 1/3rd total armor plus IS)

Maybe you can detail your calculations?  I'm not following.  For example, for the Atago, 1/3 armor + SI = 420, which would suggest only 105 Killer Whales are needed.  I was actually figuring 200, just to be sure.

- rolling could potentially increase this, crit potential from ASF carried missiles is small enough to not significantly decrease these numbers, only by maybe 4%. 

I'm not following this.  TW page 239 says a Killer Whale has a 1-in-6 chance of a critical hit so you would expect roughly 16 critical hits per hundred missiles.   Maybe you mean the chance of a kill from crits alone?  I agree that's negligible, at least in a side arc.  The KF drive will take many crits, you'll lose several weapons bays and you'll lose docking collars and doors.  About 1 in 18 critical hits is a sensor hit which cuts significantly into accuracy. 

[Vition2]

First, I was using the actual anti-shipping missiles - ie. they are functionally barracudas but take up 6 bomb slots, I averaged 2 AS Missiles per ASF (so 60-ton fighters, technically a little larger than the likely average).  If Killer Whale equivalents are being used, I would drop down to a single missile per ASF - Alsadius has commented on this being his typical assumption, but that was before AS missiles were brought up.  The 5000 missiles in this case would be too high, by almost double.

As for the armor calculations, it was calculated at 1/3rd armor plus double the internal structure (damage to IS is halved), so an Atago would have the equivalent toughness of 560 to be outright destroyed.  With their velocity and as many ASF in space as there are it would be impossible to get them all targeting the same location,

If I were to use the Killer Whale assumption, then I'd be starting with ~3000 missiles actually getting fired at the warships (yes in my scenario roughly 2k fighters are destroyed or their attacks otherwise spoiled before getting to firing range), I used an 80% hit (as I said I used a high hit percentage, if I were going by straight numbers this would probably be lower), so that's roughly 2400 missiles left, with a 1:4 ratio and a bunch of assumptions based on what the small craft carried (ending up at 12 MG per ship), ~1600 hit.  This would be significantly more devastating, but not entirely unreasonable (though unlikely) - the DC side could have spent all their defenses focusing on protecting a particular portion of the line forcing the vast majority of the enemy to waste shots on ships that were, for all intents and purposes given missile saturation, already dead.

Another possibility in the fight that could have been used but doesn't seem to have been based on the fluff, was for the DC aerospace fighters to position themselves to accelerate in a way that they could actually stick with the Lyran ASF.  The counter to that is the Lyrans actually using roughly a fifth of their ASF forces to tie up the DC defending ASF and DS.

Edit: I will admit to a mistake though, AS missiles actually do 3 capital scale damage rather than 2, but their crit potential is barracuda equivalent.  That drops the required missiles to destroy an Atago, Minekaze, and Tate to 187, 130, and 77 respectively.  This increases the surviving missiles by 50% to (using my original numbers) ~2100.  And results in significantly higher damage.  But even with this extra damage, they are still likely to have a slight armor advantage, depending on distribution it's likely to be somewhere between 4000 and 4500 total vs. the LC's 3500.

[Alsadius]

A few assorted notes:
1) What I said of the engagement time was "not all batteries got off a second shot". That implies that many did, and it seems a safe assumption that it's mostly going to be the long-range batteries(i.e., the NLs) that get two shots. Fighters are very limited by delta-v due to fuel limits(and the need to slow down and return home, while avoiding the fleet they just attacked), so they can't build up the same sort of crossing speeds that a WarShip fleet can. If we assume the average NL battery gets one shot at long range and one at short range, that's about 1.3 hits per laser at standard skill, or over 500 kills from NLs alone(since a NL will one-shot most fighters, IIRC).

Add to that the 1000+ Mech-sized autocannons and the guns on the DropShips(which should be roughly as numerous), and you're looking at the equivalent of about 280 more NLs. They'll be less efficient, because of damage spreading, but a hundred or so kills there is reasonable.

The Kurita fighters were full strength at this point, and would all be equipped for anti-fighter duties, so 800 fighters would be about 1000 Barracudas. They won't all hit, and won't all kill if they do hit, but I'd expect at least 500 kills there.

The rest come from fighter/DropShip guns, a bit of friendly fire, the occasional lucky hit from a NAC, and increasing the above kill numbers due to a high Draconis skill roll and the fact that the fighters are easy targets before they launch. 1500 might be a touch high, but it's at least in the right ballpark. And you'll notice that when some of the Draconis advantages go away - when the fighter ranks get thinned, they have no more missiles, and the Lyran fighters can maneuver again - the losses go from ~1500 on the inbound to "hundreds" on the outbound. I didn't give exact numbers, but I was thinking a few hundred, despite the same effective engagement geometry(similar number of guns, and fewer targets for them to focus fire on). That's the difference made by the Barracuda barrage and the evasion penalties.

2) The Lyrans were holding their fire until close range. That meant that any fighter destroyed before close range never fired its missiles. This resulted in a fair bit of reduced damage compared to the theoretical baseline. (However, the missiles that were fired were, of course, substantially more effective than they would otherwise have been).

3) The Draconis fleet had a fair bit of on-board defence too. It carries 4800 total MG, which isn't as much as the Lyrans but is still substantial. It doesn't all get cut in 4.

4) Civilian DS have been a force multiplier in a few fights. They're pricey for what they do(since they're cargo and vehicle models, not carrier or PWS models), but you effectively only pay for them if they get blown up, at least as I've written it thus far. This is a mixed blessing in some ways, since I'm starting to see how you guys could game it. But in the context of this fight, before I remembered the DropShip fleet I was looking at a de facto annihilating victory for the Lyrans. They wouldn't have killed it all in one fight, but they'd have killed so much that the remainder would lose a battle, so they'd just need to run away. For no losses save some hundreds of fighters. If that was how the chips had fallen I'd show it, but it seems implausible that a major fleet would allow that to happen, especially when they were the ones who won the command skill roll, and had the strategic initiative, and had good sensors and situational awareness.

The downside to civvy DS is that they come with a giant gaggle of unprotected JS floating somewhere in the black. I assume they hide themselves and avoid the standard jump points as best they can, but one of these days a nation is going to get very badly reamed when their JS fleet decides to turn into a fireworks show. I'm waiting for someone to truly botch a command roll before I start looking at outcomes like that, though.

Edit:
5) The stats with three Atagoes and one Tate down, and ignoring missiles, are 6606 potential capital damage from the Kurita fleet vs 5376 for the Lyrans, and 8820 effective capital HP for the Kurita fleet vs 4620 for the Tyrs(since I'm assuming that the carriers are staying back as best they can). That includes all facings, so it's not exactly accurate, but it's an easy benchmark.

6) I've looked over the numbers, and I was too light on damaging the Draconis fleet in the gunfight. They basically just lost one Minekaze while killing four ships. They had an advantage, but not that big an advantage. I've swapped the repair costs around a bit - instead of $16B for the Dracs and $20B for the Lyrans, it's now $24B for the Dracs and $12B for the Lyrans. That isn't all damage inflicted in the gun phase of the fight - some came from the initial carrier strike - but it seems to more accurately represent what should have happened. And with that, the report is now official, and I'm going to bed.

[truetanker]

4) Civilian DS have been a force multiplier in a few fights. They're pricey for what they do(since they're cargo and vehicle models, not carrier or PWS models), but you effectively only pay for them if they get blown up, at least as I've written it thus far.

So you do pay for them... interesting.

TT

[Lagrange]

As for the armor calculations, it was calculated at 1/3rd armor plus double the internal structure (damage to IS is halved), so an Atago would have the equivalent toughness of 560 to be outright destroyed.  With their velocity and as many ASF in space as there are it would be impossible to get them all targeting the same location,

560 is reasonable.  Doing a more precise calculation against the dispersion of fire on a broadside arc, I see an expected 686 capital damage (=172 killer whales) to kill.  However, it's only expected 330 capital damage (= 83 killer whales) until the armor is stripped off (=> the warship becomes vulnerable to normal ASF weapons and critical hits rapidly render it a mission kill). 

If attacks hit other arcs, the nose and aft critical hits are much more severe which rapidly renders the warship either unable to hit (nose) or unable to move (aft).

If I were to use the Killer Whale assumption, then I'd be starting with ~3000 missiles actually getting fired at the warships (yes in my scenario roughly 2k fighters are destroyed or their attacks otherwise spoiled before getting to firing range),

How do you destroy 2000 fighters in 1 or 2 minutes?  In the narrative, weapons only fire once or twice before the missile release.    In either case, it's ~1K fighters (=20%) killed in the narrative before weapon release.  This seems unaccountably high, but it leaves ~3K KWs and ~1900 BCs incoming when you account for the double Barracuda load of 1200 fighters.

I used an 80% hit (as I said I used a high hit percentage, if I were going by straight numbers this would probably be lower), so that's roughly 2400 missiles left,

80% actually seems a tad low at close range with likely-veteran pilots.  Nevertheless, it's not to unreasonable. For example, veteran pilot vs. evading warship has a 17% miss chance.
(eliding the rest---divergence in numbers make it hard to discuss further)

A few assorted notes:
1) What I said of the engagement time was "not all batteries got off a second shot". That implies that many did, and it seems a safe assumption that it's mostly going to be the long-range batteries(i.e., the NLs) that get two shots. Fighters are very limited by delta-v due to fuel limits(and the need to slow down and return home, while avoiding the fleet they just attacked), so they can't build up the same sort of crossing speeds that a WarShip fleet can. If we assume the average NL battery gets one shot at long range and one at short range, that's about 1.3 hits per laser at standard skill, or over 500 kills from NLs alone(since a NL will one-shot most fighters, IIRC).

Several issues, at least w.r.t. standard BT rules.
1) NLs in AAA mode have a +3 to hit penalty.  Hence, the long range shot is a near automatic miss (11+ or 10+ with a veteran gunner), and the short range shot misses notably often.  This at least halves the expected number of NL hits on the way in compared to the above.
2) NLs normally don't have a 360 degree arc.  The Atago for instance, can broadside at most 14 NLs, the Minekaze 6, and the Tate 18, implying at most 132 NLs bearing on an approach vector.  This drops NL damage by another factor of 3 compared to the above. 
3) NL 35s, at least in standard rules, only do 35 damage which actually is survivable by quite a few medium/heavy fighters which would nerf the damage even further.  (Obviously, we could change the rule as we have done with capital missiles vs. ASF.)

Add to that the 1000+ Mech-sized autocannons and the guns on the DropShips(which should be roughly as numerous),

Two issues:
1) The ACs do pretty minimal damage.   Think about it in terms of armor---if every one of 1000 AC/5s hit, you do ~300 tons of armor damage.   With a reasonable dispersion of fire, this might mean 20 ASF are killed and with a really good dispersion 30 ASF.
2) I'm skeptical about the civilian dropships (2/3 of the dropship fleet) being armed like military transports.  Weapons are quite expensive so they really hurt under the x28 multiplier for dropships.  Realistically, civilians care about profits and militaries aren't to keen on heavily armed civvies.

and you're looking at the equivalent of about 280 more NLs. They'll be less efficient, because of damage spreading, but a hundred or so kills there is reasonable.

The Kurita fighters were full strength at this point, and would all be equipped for anti-fighter duties, so 800 fighters would be about 1000 Barracudas. They won't all hit, and won't all kill if they do hit, but I'd expect at least 500 kills there.

The Barracuda's weren't mentioned so I hadn't realized.  Nevertheless, I'm skeptical about 500 kills because the incoming Lyran ASF presumably have a pretty enormous number of MGs.   At 6/ASF, you are looking at 25000+ MGs.  How are they not killing the Barracuda swarm?  A handful might get through, but I don't see how this can be a real factor.

3) The Draconis fleet had a fair bit of on-board defence too. It carries 4800 total MG, which isn't as much as the Lyrans but is still substantial. It doesn't all get cut in 4.

Sure, just the vast majority in my understanding.  The Minekaze can bring 16 MGs to bear, the Atago 8, and the Tate 40.  So if the Atagos were the primary target that's 48 relevant onboard MGs, with the rest offboard.  Given that some of those 4800 MGs are out of arc, using 1/4 of the total seems like a reasonable estimate. 

[Vition2]

If attacks hit other arcs, the nose and aft critical hits are much more severe which rapidly renders the warship either unable to hit (nose) or unable to move (aft).How do you destroy 2000 fighters in 1 or 2 minutes?  In the narrative, weapons only fire once or twice before the missile release.    In either case, it's ~1K fighters (=20%) killed in the narrative before weapon release.  This seems unaccountably high, but it leaves ~3K KWs and ~1900 BCs incoming when you account for the double Barracuda load of 1200 fighters.80% actually seems a tad low at close range with likely-veteran pilots. 

2000 in 1 or 2 minutes? NO very, very, very big NO.  The Combine isn't getting caught with their pants down, they have the time to sortie their fighters and intercept the incoming attack.  I had them at a 75% spoil rate, and I figured that two-thirds of the Combine's combat dropships were with the fleet, which because they aren't delineated between carrier or attack dropships I assigned them their 12 fighters each (40 of them total - I think the DC had 60 before the fight, but I could be wrong here). 

So DC warship fighters: 792 (total spoiled/killed: 594)
DC Dropship Fighters: 480 (total spoiled/killed: 360)
Dropship damage themselves: 2.5 kills per dropship (total spoiled/killed: 100)
Defending Beyond extreme-range capital missile launchers: 264 Launchers x 5 launches (50% kill/spoil rate: 660)
Before Launch NLs: 400 (50% kill/spoil rate: 200)
Before Launch standard-sized ACs: 960 (10% spoiled/killed: 96)

So that puts a total of 2,010 fighters spoiled/killed.  The damage done by the fighters, dropships, and capital missiles are done before the fighters even come onto what would be considered the combat map.  No capital missiles from the Lyran ships are going to be used here, it's entirely what is on the fighters, so 3000 fighters remain available for their attack run (that doesn't mean 2000 fighters are dead, just that they can't set up an appropriate attack run at the right time, and coordinating a later strike is a tough time).  Assuming a proper split, there's ~1500 barracudas and ~2150 killer whales.

Also: Attacking TN to hit: 3 (veteran) +2 (evasion) +2 (2 hexes ECM): 7+ (or ~60% hit rate)

But really we're getting into the weeds on a hypothetical calculation that I would have run rather than the narrative approach that Alsadius is using.  So if you have anymore questions please send me a PM so we don't throw the conversation off any further.  :thumbsup:

[marcussmythe]

No matter how we approach it, fighters have been judged and found wanting.

The question is how to recover the LC naval position, assuming it is recoverable.  I see several options.

1.)  Repeat build existing designs while doing RnD.  Quantity has a quality  all its own.
2.)  Refit Tyr to remove missiles and wasted cargo space in favor of more guns.  Speed and SI are unrecoverable errors on my part, but they could be made less worthless, at least.  Focus on NACs, as they provide the best firepower to tonnage?  Equip log range firepower, because otherwise they -will- get picked apart by a faster fleet with lig range guns?  2/3 and low SI really does leave me with useless hulls.  Similarly - refit Walkurie into a gunship.  Cant share a refit with Tyr, due to differences invested in making an effective carrier - so more wasted money.  But as carriers dont contribute guns or armor to the gunfight, and cannot take out their weight or cost in the fighter fight, their dead weight at the moment.  If course, all existing ships will be obsoleted by IFA.
3.)  Leave existing ships in service and build a new hull series in those yards I never should have built,  WILL be made obsolete as soon as IFA hits, yay more refits and downtime!.  At least has the advantage of fielding vessels built the right way.
4.)  Something else?  Scrap the whole fleet and start over?  Invest all production in cheap battlestations?

5.) (edit)  Go full nuclear?  Weve seen that, delivering conventional munitions, fighters and missile tubes are a losing investment (6 MT of CV and CVE destroys/mission kills 2.25 MT of CA and then can no longer contribute, effectively mission killing themselves.)  However, nuclear munitions may prove decisive where conventional does not, and the LC is better situated than any other power to deliver them.  Pro:  Means not losing.  Con:  Means everyone loses and game stops being fun.
I just dont see any good answers, or for that matter even any okay answers.

[Alsadius]

Several issues, at least w.r.t. standard BT rules.
1) NLs in AAA mode have a +3 to hit penalty.  Hence, the long range shot is a near automatic miss (11+ or 10+ with a veteran gunner), and the short range shot misses notably often.  This at least halves the expected number of NL hits on the way in compared to the above.
2) NLs normally don't have a 360 degree arc.  The Atago for instance, can broadside at most 14 NLs, the Minekaze 6, and the Tate 18, implying at most 132 NLs bearing on an approach vector.  This drops NL damage by another factor of 3 compared to the above. 
3) NL 35s, at least in standard rules, only do 35 damage which actually is survivable by quite a few medium/heavy fighters which would nerf the damage even further.  (Obviously, we could change the rule as we have done with capital missiles vs. ASF.)

I...totally forgot to account for that. #2, in particular, is a pretty huge error.

Okay, retcon time. The fighters came in strangely slow for some reason (maybe the Drac fleet had more time to react than expected, or maybe the Lyrans were using an old fighter design with too little fuel?), and so the 1-2 shots per battery was actually 2-3. This is probably unfair to Marcus, but I don't think I can plausibly re-write this battle at this point. I will try to keep this in mind next time, however.

No matter how we approach it, fighters have been judged and found wanting.

The question is how to recover the LC naval position, assuming it is recoverable.

Um...what? You won that battle pretty handily overall, despite losing the rolls.

[UnLimiTeD]

Every freak accident in the past centuries could be explained with a GM having an off day.  ;D
Forgive me if I'm just blind, for I couldn't find it, but: How are battles actually resolved?
And, assuming there's counting and virtual dice rolling involved: Would it make sense to send the preliminary numbers to a neutral party to check?

Now there's an interesting choice upon marcus:
Are the problems, in-universe, recognized as problems with the tactics, the technology, or bad execution at that moment?  :)

[marcussmythe]

Um...what? You won that battle pretty handily overall, despite losing the rolls.

TLDR:
Larger force flees field before smaller force which goes on to acheive its objectives.  Doctrine of 'fighter strike to cripple, gunline to defend carriers and coup de grace' does not work.  Tyr CA grossly inferior to Atago CA.  6MT of carrier kills 2.25MT of heavy cruiser.

More Detail:
Perception of need for doctrine/design change is based on the following.

1.)  6CVA + 6 CVE (6MT) conduct a fighter strike of ~5000 Fighters, defeat 3 CA (2.25MT).  Of those 3, 2 are hard killed, 1 is mission killed.  The 6MT of carriers contributes nothing further to the fight.  Mission killing 6MT of ship to eliminate 2.25MT of ship is just not sustainable.  Now, better armed carriers that could stand in the line (contributing firepower and armor to the 'gunline battle' might address this.

2.)  6 CA (Tyr) badly outperformed by 3 CA (Atago, already damaged) 6 DD (Minekaze) and (presumable?) 4-6 FF (Tate).  Now, some of the problem in this phase of the battle grows out of 1, above - the CVAs and CVEs play zero role in this phase, contributing neither fire nor armor.  Again, CVAs and CVEs that stand in the line, contributing armor and fire would help, but given the light missile load on Walkurie and Heimdaller, I cannot say that the Admiral made a clearly wrong call in keeping them out of harms way. (though I anticipate that the box score would have been better had the carriers stayed in the gunfight launching missiles and absorbing fire - the losses for BOTH sides would have been heavier).

3.)  Because of 1 and 2 above, the underlying doctrine (Carrier strike, Cruiser Gunline defeats/defends against survivors of carrier strike) failed.  Now, we know out of character that it failed because of poor rolls on the part of the LC force, and because of the presence of a swarm of Civilian Dropships that both served as AAA/PDS, and to absorb incoming missiles.  But the characters in game dont know they rolled poorly, and must assume that the enemy will in the future also have the 'Free Milita Dropship Swarm' (even if not free because it has to be paid for post hoc, still free in that it didnt have to be paid for before!)

4.)  Larger force (tonnage) confronts smaller force, and flees the field, allowing smaller force to conduct/continue invasion of LC.  If you send a larger navy and still fail in the objectives, its time to reconsider how your doing business!  A slightly profitable kill ratio does ameliorate this.

5.)  You really cant build a ship with more fighters per ton than Walkurie.  You CAN build a navy with more fighters than the LC, at the cost of all other capabilities... but I dont see another 6 CVs deckloads killing enough to keep the survivors from running down and eliminating the carriers.   Faster carriers and missiles fired from longer ranges might allow more reload/reattack - but at 4/6, youve lost about half your fighter carriage.  Firing at long or extreme range, youve lost half or more of your hits.  In such a scenario, your emptiying the decks of 6 Megatonnes of carrier to kill on a good day ONE Cruiser.  Thats just doesnt work.  On the reverse, you can with casual ease build a ship, or a navy, with far, far more AAA/PDS than the DC brought.

For the above reasons, current LC design and doctrine is a failure, and a dead end, from an OOC perspective.  Now, its possible that in-universe the Navy will pitch this loss as a win - after all, the German Navy called Jutland a win, despite fleeing the field, based on total losses inflicted.  However, it seems that the Naval Prognosticators of the universe should be looking at this and seeing IC what I'm seeing OOC.

Whether or not they *will*, ~tips hat to Unlimited~, is another story.  The Lyran Military History primarily consists of being assigned a dominant economic position and then carrying the idiot ball sufficiently far to ensure that that dominant economic position is rendered meaningless.  Im thinking having the navy stick its fingers in its ears and singing 'lalalalalalala', while yelling at its pilots to get closer, yelling at their missile designers to invent missiles that kill ships, and building to replace losses while conducting RnD and ignoring the elephant in the living room would certainly be the sort of thing that has happened before.

One doctrine change that IS possible... a high speed engagement profile might allow missiles to hit hard enough to meet their promise, but a 2/3 fleet only does high speed engagement where the enemy allows or it has serious recon superiority.

[Lagrange]

2000 in 1 or 2 minutes? NO very, very, very big NO. 

Yeah, that's my thought.

The Combine isn't getting caught with their pants down, they have the time to sortie their fighters and intercept the incoming attack. 

Except that's not what happened.

I had them at a 75% spoil rate, and I figured that two-thirds of the Combine's combat dropships were with the fleet, which because they aren't delineated between carrier or attack dropships I assigned them their 12 fighters each (40 of them total - I think the DC had 60 before the fight, but I could be wrong here). 

In this case, they would have ~22 combat dropships and 80-or-so civilian dropships.

The damage done by the fighters, dropships, and capital missiles are done before the fighters even come onto what would be considered the combat map. 

It didn't happen and it doesn't account for the Lyran ASF.

Also: Attacking TN to hit: 3 (veteran) +2 (evasion) +2 (2 hexes ECM): 7+ (or ~60% hit rate)

Proper warship ECM hasn't been invented yet.

Okay, retcon time. The fighters came in strangely slow for some reason (maybe the Drac fleet had more time to react than expected, or maybe the Lyrans were using an old fighter design with too little fuel?), and so the 1-2 shots per battery was actually 2-3. This is probably unfair to Marcus, but I don't think I can plausibly re-write this battle at this point. I will try to keep this in mind next time, however.

We also haven't delved into what 5K-15K AC/5s from the Lyran ASFs should have done. 

Um...what? You won that battle pretty handily overall, despite losing the rolls.

I can see where Marcus is coming from here.   If the plan for a fighter-heavy strategy is:

• NLs don't have a +3 to hit penalty.
• NLs have a 360 arc.
• NLs are an automatic kill vs. fighters
• 5 AC/5 shots kill Lyran fighters.
• 70+ Civilian dropships are up-armed and armored to military standards for free when facing fighter strikes.
• Lyran ASF don't have (or refuse to use) MGs for defense against Barracudas.
• Lyran ASF don't have (or refuse to use) AC/5s or other mech-scale weapons in their attack pass.

it makes the fighter heavy strategy look like a cartoon.   Maybe the rolls are so overwhelmingly important that they wash out most/all of the value of design and even the battletech rules and commonsense.  Or maybe the plan is that every design is roughly equivalent with rules adjusting as necessary to make that so.  Either way, it means that investing fighter-heavy designs doesn't make much sense.  In the first case nothing matters while in the second case, you'd rather have 50% more battleships.

I'll note here that massed fighter strikes are easily countered with massed MGs---it just requires appropriate designs to do so (... see TC).   Hence, it's not like we are talking about something unbalanced.

[UnLimiTeD]

Come 10 turns, and fighters might just be a danger without missiles.
What I find to be quite humorous is that in the end, both navies might chalk this fight up as a failure.

[marcussmythe]

Come 10 turns, and fighters might just be a danger without missiles.
What I find to be quite humorous is that in the end, both navies might chalk this fight up as a failure.

We decided early on, for good reason, that for our game purposes standard scale weapons did not meaningfully harm intact capital scale armor - because otherwise Walkurie and similar would just walk all over the game. While the AC/5 and standard engine do not create phenomenal fighters, replacing every current fighter with an Eisensturn or Hydaspes wont really change the math at this scale.

My -hope- had been that fighter missiles could create an initial firepower edge, and then the now empty fighters would fire ACs, etc. into wounds created by capital weapons.  Thats... not what happened here, but rather than abandoning fighters and rebuilding the fleet, I may instead see if new, and more clearly expressed, donctrine can change this.

[Lagrange]

Thats... not what happened here, but rather than abandoning fighters and rebuilding the fleet, I may instead see if new, and more clearly expressed, donctrine can change this.

Some clarification about fighter armor vs. mech scale weapons seems like a good idea.  If ASF armor is going to be treated as 1/10th normal thickness vs. mech scale weapons (as happened here) and the Combine upgrades AAA (entirely sensible after this battle), this may not be viable.

Related, I glanced through all the 50+ ton designs in TR3039 just now.  Every one of them (even the infamous Chippewa) would typically survive a single NL35 hit in the default rules.  I'm personally fine with treating capital scale damage as x100 standard scale damage as that makes more sense than the standard x10 anyways, but maybe we should be explicit about this.

[marcussmythe]

Funny you mention Chippewa.  I learned to loathe that machine flying Lyran ASFs on a succesion wars Megamek server - it was by far the most commonly available Lyran Heavy Fighter, and when the other team brings Stukas.. or god help you Reivers...

Also enjoyed serious success in the LCF-R20. (Remove LRM, add armor), and thus the Shu Heavy Fighter was born.  The fluff is actually a giant FU to the Chippewa...

[UnLimiTeD]

Good to know. Then fighters are indeed useless.
Which also means anti-fighter weapons are; That is a design consideration, after all. I'll keep that in mind.

[marcussmythe]

Good to know. Then fighters are indeed useless.
Which also means anti-fighter weapons are; That is a design consideration, after all. I'll keep that in mind.

Id not say useless.  Against an opponent with no PDS, AAA, or fighters, it worked pretty well (See FC vs TH).

Im just not seeing justification for building new carriers.  Ill likely keep the ones Ive got, and modify doctrine to make them useable, but its definitely gonna be battlewagons (2/3 or 3/5 is up in the air - 3/5 is likely superior, but wasted for me unless I throw away my existing fleet), likeky either ignoring PDS/AAA (thats what the carried fighters are for) cornerposting if PDS/AAA is called for, and devoting cargo space for a can if beans (over-cargoed existing designs can feed the battlewagons)

[Lagrange]

A bug report: It appears that fire control tonnage is a factor of 10 to low for every arc except the nose.  As an example, J9 compute the total weapon tonnage in FR, then multiplies by 0.1.  J6 then multiplies by 0.1 again when computing fire control tonnage from the FR arc.

Is this something to fix or part of the rules of this game?

[marcussmythe]

A bug report: It appears that fire control tonnage is a factor of 10 to low for every arc except the nose.  As an example, J9 compute the total weapon tonnage in FR, then multiplies by 0.1.  J6 then multiplies by 0.1 again when computing fire control tonnage from the FR arc.

Is this something to fix or part of the rules of this game?

We never discussed changing the fire control tonnage of which I am aware - which suggests bug, though hopefully one that wont impact existing designs much.

[UnLimiTeD]

I was told that was known. Though I wasn't sure which side was the correct one.

Id not say useless.  Against an opponent with no PDS, AAA, or fighters, it worked pretty well (See FC vs TH).

That's a lot of ifs.

[Smegish]

Well the Lyran Commonwealth has been updated on the Master Sheet so you can do your turn Marcus, is that DC vs FS fight still on, or put off for next turn?

[marcussmythe]

Im.. considering my options.  Like Ive said, need to figure out what the right doctrine is before I can do anything else, and then figure out how to execute with the resources available or projected.

[truetanker]

I still need to know what I took, a single planet or several like last time?

TT

Also, this might have to do with the Dracs losing alot of fighters...
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=10373.msg245302#msg245302

TT

[Smegish]

Believe I told you it was just the one, Illyria hasn't had time to expand yet.

[truetanker]

Thought that was writers fiat....

But then how does one expand? I either take what I want ( or can keep, looking at you FWL, don't eat me purple byrd! ), or is there another way?

Would this be feasible? I specifically " attack " a planet, say Trondheimal in the Illyrian Palatinate, even though their not really colonized yet, and " take " control of it as in defending territory and rebuilding the system to my realm's patronage?

It's like calling " Dibs " on something and then defending said Dibs from all others. While this would let me to honor my expansionist behavior, it would also allow others to seek out my claims for themselves. ( Don't try it I says! Stupid purple byrd! )

Thoughts or is this too much? Cause the only action I got is becoming a long term bank sink... or expand. So much one can do...

TT

[Lagrange]

I found myself flipping through turns trying to find individual designs, so I made a master set of design links.   This provides easy access to detail beyond the turn-tracking spreadsheet.

Draconis Combine (Smegish) Trojan 100K 3/5 Q-ship Kutai 200K 4/6 Corvette/Escort Tate 250K 3/5 Frigate Fubuki 420K 3/5 Destroyer Minekaze 500K 3/5 Destroyer Atago 750K 3/5 Cruiser Akagi 750K 3/5 Carrier Onsen 500K Jump Station Tenshi 90K Defense Station Tanto 30 ton 9/14 Fighter Wakizashi 50 ton 7/11 Fighter Yari 80 ton 6/9 Fighter Wyvern 90 ton 3/5 Mech	Federated Suns (Kiviar) Albion 400K 5/8 Frigate Robinson 500K 4/6 Light Cruiser Kentares IV 750K 5/8 Carrier Galahad 900K 4/6 Heavy Cruiser Crucis 1M 3/5 Battleship Barghest 20K Defense Station Padfoot 30K Battlestation Northumberland 240K Battlestation Federation 400K Jump Station Rainbow 5K 4/6 Carrier/Combat Dropship Cyclone 80 ton Fighter	Free Worlds League (Maingunnery) Heracles 750K 3/5 Battlecruiser Phalanx 250K 6/9 Corvette Eros 750K Jump Station Atlanta 5K 6/9 Carrier Dropship (Unlimited) Heracles II 750K 3/5 Battlecruiser	Lyran Commonwealth (marcussmythe) Heimdaller 240K 3/5 Frigate Heimdaller II 240K 4/6 Escort Carrier Tyr v2 750K 2/3 Heavy Cruiser Walkure 750K 2/3 Super Carrier Buri 1.25M 2/3 Battleship Ribe 500K Jump Station Shu 85 ton 6/9 Fighter Shu-3 90 ton 6/9 Fighter Lady Bat v2 100 ton 5/8 Fighter	Capellan Commonality (Alsadius) Qinru Zhe 480K 5/8 Raider Quzhujian 500K 4/6 Destroyer Chongzhi 500K Jump Station (Jester Motley) Bringer of Beer 250K 2/3 Troop Transport Bringer of Shots 250K 3/5 Carrier Hell of a Wife's Wrath 500K 3/5 Destroyer Wind Spirit/Duck 750K 5/8 Raider Rapid Ventilation 1M 4/6 Battlecruiser
Marian Hegemony (truetanker) Trojan Mk2 100K 3/5 Q-ship Scapha 100K 2/3 Transport Scapha II 100K 2/3 Transport Falco/Bueto 65 ton 5/8 Fighter Cyclonas 80 ton 6/9 Fighter	Taurian Concordat (Marauder648) Independence 75K 2/3 Destroyer (Illegal) (Alsadius) Marathon 145K Battlestation (Lagrange) Taurus I v2 100K .75/1 Carrier Station Nova 100K .75/1 Destroyer Station Matador 200K 6/9 Raider Siesta 100K Jump Station Siesta Tanker 100K Tanker Station Mother 100K Jumpyard Tick v2 5K 11/17 Tug Dropship Crestbreaker 200 ton 1/2 Antimissile smallcraft David 200 ton 7/11 Marine boarding craft Skyfall 200 ton 3/5 Combat Dropshuttle Rager v2 90 ton 6/9 Fighter	United Hindu Collective (Alsadius) Maal 750K 2/3 Transport Pratham 200K Jump station Raksha 225K Defense Station	Rim Worlds Republic (Alsadius) Vittoria 480K 4/6 Frigate Caesar 500K 4/6 Light Cruiser Scutum 120K Defense Station Renaissance 500K Jump Station	Terran Hegemony (Alsadius) Vincent 250K 4/6 Escort Protector 500K 1/2 Jumpship Escort Essex II 560K 3/5 Destroyer Lola II 680K 4/6 Destroyer Charon 700K 4/6 Transport Black Lion II 720K 3/5 Battlecruiser Quixote II 780K 2/3 Frigate Monsoon II 1.31M 2/3 Battleship Potemkin 1.4M 2/3 Assault Transport Newgrange 2M 3/5 Yardship Ancille 120K Defense Station

Generics (= default designs used in consideration for combat)
Light Fighter: Tanto-2 - 30t, 9/14, 125 armor, SRM-6, 4x MG
Medium Fighter: Wakizashi-2 - 50t, 7/11, 170 armor, AC/5, 2x SRM-6, 4x MG
Heavy Fighter: Cyclone - 80t, 6/9, 241 armor, 2x AC/5, 2x SRM-6, SRM-4, 6x MG

Infantry Small DS: (none yet)
Battalion - 5000t, 3/5, 1015 armor, 6x LRM-20, 42x MG, 18x heavy tank, 305t cargo
Carrier - 5000t, 3/5, 1015 armor, 6x LRM-20, 42x MG, 12x ASF, 1263t cargo
Cargo - 5000t, 3/5, 684 armor, 3x LRM-20, 18x MG, 3383t cargo
Rainbow - 5000t, 4/6, 1370 armor, 4x Barracuda, 18x AC/5, 46x MG, 6x ASF, 365t cargo

Shuttle: Centauro-150 - 150t, 6/9, 516 armor, 6x MG, 3x Inf, 9t cargo
Screen SC: Fireshield - 200t, 5/8, 952 armor, 36x MG, 2t cargo
Tank Transport SC: Skyfall - 200t, 3/5, 300 armor, 6x MG, 1x heavy tank, 10t cargo
Tanker SC: (none yet)
Cargo SC: (none yet)

[marcussmythe]

Very useful, thank you

[marcussmythe]

Lyran Commonwealth, Turn VII:  2410-2419

 ((designs and possible fluff to follow))

Code: [Select]

Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2410
Physical Assets:
Starting  Shipyards: Alarion: 5/5  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Staring  Warships:  Heimdaller II FF x 7 34.663
Tyr CA x6 44.3
Walkure CV x 8 55.576
Staring Stations: Ribe Recharge Station x130 22.75
Staring Jumpships:  30 15
Staring Dropships:  0
Staring Small Craft: 557 5.57
Staring Fighters: 7,235         36.175
Maintenance Value 214.034(21.4)
Cash: 6.184
Income:         112
                118.184


Expenses:
Repairs                 21
Maintenance: 25.054
100%. 150% Gunships, Fighters
R&D:  Tyr CA Block II Refit                                                     4
R&D:  Buri BB                                                                   11
Refit: Tyr CA->Tyr II CA x6                                                     3.7
Production:  Buri BB x 4                                                        44
Research:  1B Miniturization, 4B Strength, 4B Advancement                    9
Total: 117.439
Remainder         .745


Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2409
Physical Assets:
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 5/5  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller II FF x 7 34.663
Tyr II CA x 6 48
Walkure CV x 8 55.76
                                        Buri x 4                                     44
Ending Stations:         Ribe Recharge Station x130 22.75
Ending Jumpships:  30 15
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft: 557 5.57
Ending Fighters: 7235 36.175
Maintenance Value 261.482 (26.15)
Cash: .745


2010 Admiralty Board Decennial Review:
Reports and Conclusions
DIGEST
***FOR INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONLY - NOT CLASSIFIED***

Battle of Vega:

1.)  Fighter forces cannot be relied on for decisive action, for the following reasons:
     a.)  At Vega, the strike failed in part because of launch range.  A longer range strike would have allowed reload and reattack.  A shorter ranged strike would not have exhausted fighter fuel and fighter pilots - allowing fighters to directly support the battleline.  An intermediate approach served neither end.
     b.)  Poor target prioritization cannot be controlled.  Despite extensive training, poor fire distribution left many ships damaged but still combat capable, while overkilling others and wasting fire on unexpectedly effective civilian dropships.  The unexpected will always occur.
     c.)  Civilian dropships serve as fire magnets, AAA, and as PDS.  The unexpected presence of these elements, at no naval cost to our foes, cannot be planned for, and cannot be countered unless the LCN either budgets for massive dropship fleets, or accepts the idea of impressing civilian vessels into suicidal roles at gunpoint.  Neither is feasible, for either financial or moral reasons.
 
2.)  Absence of CV and CVE hulls from wall of battle removes weight of AAA/PDS, weight of missile fire, and allows the opponent economy of fire distribution and the CA wing to fight alone.

3.)  Missile Fires suffer the same problems as Fighter Missile Strikes - on an even lighter weight of impulse fire.  Missile Launch tubes, adequately supplied for extended engagement, are mass inefficient compared to other weapon systems in the absence of any point defense - where such point defense is common and will become moreso.

4.)  Line of Battle firepower and resilience is low, especially at range.  This had deleterious knock-on effects at Vega.

5.)  Dispersion of the Wall of Battle is to be avoided AT ALL COSTS.  Elements left on the Marik frontier would have been decisive for the LCN at Vega - and the LCNs rush to engage resulted in no strategic advantage, while providing only a minor material victory.  Better to present the entire wall of battle well knit at one decisive point in time.  Further note that only voluntary dispersal of DC Fleet (leaving 3xCA, 3xDD, and 2xFF out of the fight) allowed a material victory at Vega - presence of those DCN vessels would have resulted in a lopsided DCN Victory.

Battles of Ford, Red Friday, and Solaris:

1.)  Despite the lack of decisive effect of LCN Fighter operations, AAA and PDS must still be prioritized, due to enemy propensity to utilize nuclear weapons.

2.)  Navigational mishaps can turn operations that should be decisive victories into easy defeats.  Future operations will avoid jumps into high traffic areas.

Conclusions - Construction and OOB:

[/size]
1.)  LCN to begin build BB Class vessels, focused on long range fires and self-escorting against fighter strikes.
2.)  Refit of existing Tyr class CAs, removing wasteful missile and cargo allocations for additional firepower.  Functionally a slower, more fragile, but now more heavily armed DCN CA - Atago will remain superior due to greater hull resilience that will be addressed by follow on CA Classes.
3.)  Current construction, "LCN Block II", will deemphasize fighter and missile mounts, due to extensive presence legacy designs.  Block III construction may modify this.

Conclusions - Doctrine:

1.)  THE BATTLELINE SHALL BE A SINGLE UNIT.  The Admiralty cannot sufficiently stress this enough.  Employment of fighters separate from battleline allows foe to concentrate on and defeat each element in sequence.  Absence of CV elements from battleline allows foe to focus fire on gunship elements.  ALL NAVAL ELEMENTS WILL STAND IN THE WALL. CVA and CVE designs will contribute to PDS and AAA networking, and provide missile fires on demand.  Dropships will provide anti-fighter and other services according to ability.  NO VESSEL, DROPSHIP, OR FIGHTER WILL at ANY POINT be out of MUTUAL SUPPORT RANGE OF ANY OTHER ELEMENT.

2.)  Fighter strikes will be conducted in the presence of, and in support of, the major fleet elements.  Off-axis attacks, coordinated with gunfire, are allowed.  Strikes will be conducted in a focused fashion against decisive enemy elements.  Once conducted, fighter craft ARE TO REMAIN IN SPACE SUPPORTING CAPITAL VESSELS until the battle is decided or they are without further military effect.  Supporting strikes of this nature should emphasize sensors, fire control, manuvering, weapons, or other vulnerable surface features, or when possible capitalize on exposed internal structures of enemy vessels.

3.)  Missile Strikes will be conducted in a similar fashion to, and in coordination with, fighter strikes.

4.)  Jump Navigation shall be to points near, but outside, any known 'high traffic volume' areas, such as the standard Jump Points.

5.)  Barring PRESSING AND ABSOLUTE IMMEDIATE NATIONAL NECESSITY, the Wall of Battle SHALL NOT BE DISPERSED AT ANY TIME OR IN ANY FASHION.   Any insufficient deployment has the same strategic result as no deployment, and invites unnecessary losses.  ENTIRE WALL OF BATTLE (All BB, CVS, CA Hulls) to be CONCENTRATED AT ALL TIMES.  CVE or other later Escort/Frigate designs will be used in support of wall, with extra elements as necessary providing 'flag-showing' and other warship presence roles.  Additional FF hulls <=250kt to be procured for this purpose as budget allows.

Code: [Select]

Tyr II (Heavy Cruiser)

  After failing spectacularly in its design role at the Battle of Vega, the remaining Heavy Crusiers of the Tyr class
were taken into hand for refit.  Some of the core failings of the design, such as its inadequate structural
reinforcement and subsequent poor armor performance were not subject to remedy.  Others, such as inadequate
firepower and reach, were.  A rationalized armament, increasing both long range punch and short range throw
weight was mounted, as well as a heavy AAA and PDS belt.  This increased focus on anti-fighter and anti-missile
armament was initially questioned, given the failure of fighter doctrine over Vega, but when it was pointed out that
the enemies of the Lyran people lacked the Lyran hesitance to employ nuclear weapons to achieve their ends, such
questions were stifled.

One unusual part of the Tyr II combat package is the large marine compliment and the outfitting of its small craft
as boarding shuttles.  In combat, the boarding shuttles will manuver to deliver marine boarders under cover of
fighter strikes, intending to seize critical locations on the enemy vessel, taking it out of the fight or forcing it to
strike its colours.  Duty as a boarding marine is volunteer only, drawing from the most experienced echelons of the
LCAF small units and special forces, due to the difficulty and anticipated losses these forces will suffer.

Tyr II (CA)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2410
Mass: 750,000 tons
Length: 1243 meters
Width:  321 meters
Height:  220 meters
Sail Diameter: 1245 meters
Fuel: 4,000 tons (10,000)
Tons/Burn-day: 39.52
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Sail Integrity: 5
KF Drive Integrity: 16
Heat Sinks: 8,840 (100%)
Structural Integrity: 90
Cost:  $8B  (Loaded)

Armor
Fore: 87
Fore-Sides: 105
Aft-Sides: 105
Aft: 87

Cargo
Bay 1 (Nose): 252 Marines
Bay 2 (RBS):  10 Fighters, 10 Small Craft (6 Doors)
Bay 3 (LBS):  10 Fighters, 10 Small Craft (6 Doors)
Bay 4 (Aft):  7,813 Tons Cargo (2 Doors)


DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 2 (180 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 50
Life Boats: 50

Crew:  461
Marines:    252

All Crew, Marines in 1st/2nd Class Quarters

Ammunition: LRM/20 :  600 Tons
  Autocannon 5:  400 Tons
Machine Gun:  40 Tons
  NAC/20:  1024 Tons


Notes:
Small NCSS
Mounts 1,350 tons of Standard armor. 
100% of required heat sinks


Weapons:

Nose: Damage
50 LRM 20 (900 Rounds)
50 AC/5 (1000 Rounds)
50 MG (1000 Rounds)

Fore Left/Right:
4 HNPPC 60
16 NAC/20 (640 Rnds) 320

Broadside:
50 LRM 20 (900 Rounds)
50 AC/5 (1000 Rounds)
50 MG (1000 Rounds)


Aft Left/Right:
4 HNPPC 60
16 NAC/20 (640 Rnds) 320


Rear:
50 LRM 20 (900 Rounds)
50 AC/5 (1000 Rounds)
50 MG (1000 Rounds)


Code: [Select]

Buri (Battleship)

Intending to address the observed failings of the LCN Wall of Battle in terms of both armored resilience and long
range firepower, the Buri was, when she first left her moorings, the toughest warship in space.  This toughness is
backed up by a massive point defense belt, intending to allow the vessel to fend off all but the heaviest of missile
swarms and fighter strikes, freeing the navy's fighter assets for offensive operations.

On the offense end, each broadside of the vessel carries ten quadruple mounts of the massive Donal 'Gungnir'
Heavy Naval PPCs.  With unprecedented range and accuracy, coupled with firepower approaching that of the much
shorter ranged Naval Autocannon, a full broadside from a Buri has the potential to fully penetrate the armored hide
and defeat the structural reinforcement of any ship in service in a single salvo.  In practice, the fleet will combine
fires, preferring to destroy one target and silence its weapons before moving on to the next.

All of this armor and firepower comes at a price, of course.  The Buri handles no better than typical for the heavy
elements of the Lyran Fleet, and is intended to operate in conjunction with cruisers that will serve to protect her
flanks and dissuade enemy vessels from closing.  Also, armament placement was chosen to maximize firepower,
leaving the vessel slightly more vulnerable than one that distributes offensive and defensive weaponry more
evenly.  However, this vulnerability was felt to be counteracted by mounting more defensive and offensive firepower
as allowed by this fire control efficiency - as an enemy destroyed by greater fire, before it can defeat thicker armor,
cannot take advantage of that vulnerability.

Buri (BB)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2410
Mass: 1,250,000 tons
Length: 1212 meters
Width:  420 meters
Height:  268 meters
Sail Diameter: 1150 meters
Fuel: 5,000 tons (12,500)
Tons/Burn-day: 39.52
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Sail Integrity: 6
KF Drive Integrity: 25
Heat Sinks: 19,800 (91%)
Structural Integrity: 180
Cost:  $11B

Armor
Fore: 200
Fore-Sides: 377
Aft-Sides: 377
Aft: 200

Cargo
Bay 1 (Nose):  84 Marines
Bay 2 (RBS):  10 Fighters, 5 Small Craft (6 Doors)
Bay 3 (LBS):  10 Fighters, 5 Small Craft (6 Doors)
Bay 4 (Aft):  3742 Tons Cargo (2 Doors)


DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 3 (240 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 50
Life Boats: 50

Crew:  656
Marines:    84

Ammunition: 1,800 Tons LRM/20 Ammunition
  250 Tons AC/5 Ammunition
  400 Tons MG Ammunition

Notes:
Small NCSS
Mounts 4,500 tons of Standard armor. 
91% of required heat sinks


Weapons:

Nose: Damage
150 LRM/20 (2700 Rounds)
50 AC/5 (1000 Rounds)
100 MG  (20000 Rounds)

Fore Left/Right:
20 HNPPC 300

Broadside:
150 LRM/20 (2700 Rounds)
50 AC/5 (1000 Rounds)
100 MG  (20000 Rounds)

Aft Left/Right:
20 HNPPC 300


Rear:
150 LRM/20 (2700 Rounds)
50 AC/5 (1000 Rounds)
100 MG  (20000 Rounds