Author Topic: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race  (Read 192915 times)

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 446
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #300 on: 22 June 2018, 17:42:16 »
Does the Davion fleet admiral have exact numbers on Fighters, Small Craft and Cargo for his ships? Unfortunately they don't automatically appear on the TRO workup on the spreadsheet for some reason.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #301 on: 22 June 2018, 17:45:25 »
RE:  Ammo Light on Tyr -
Note:  Missiles are ammo light (5 rounds fire, roll ship, 5 rounds fire).  But they are only a thrid of her broadside.  The Cannon will run out about never.  100 Rounds per Gun.  :) 

If you care about the exact use doctrine on the missiles, let me know.  Otherwise I wont bug you with them.
« Last Edit: 22 June 2018, 17:50:19 by marcussmythe »

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #302 on: 22 June 2018, 17:51:16 »
The spreadsheet has been linked in the OP of this thread. I see a couple of you are on there right now. There's a few things missing - I don't have all nations up to date, and a few of the designs are incomplete, but it's close to finished. I'll try to post some NPC turns soon.

The spreadsheet is coming along awesomely.  I see you merged the CapCom on the spreadsheet.. looking forward to not doing a turn for 5 different minors?  :)

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 446
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #303 on: 22 June 2018, 18:06:35 »
Will the entries for the various minor factions include ships they're using, but don't build?

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #304 on: 22 June 2018, 20:17:02 »
Refits:  Suggest in addition to difference in cost and a 50% of new final cost ‘design’ (current rules), refits also take yard space and time (maybe half new build time).

Rationale:  Removing all the HNPPCs for NACs on 100 McKennas should not happen instantly for a one time cost of 1/2 a McKenna.

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 446
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #305 on: 22 June 2018, 23:12:22 »
One other thing: Apparently the Marians are paying me 1.5Bil/turn for each Trojan, in an effort to pay it off more. Won't adjust my budget this turn, will just save the 1Bil left over for next turn.

Jester Motley

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #306 on: 22 June 2018, 23:41:51 »
I can take Liao and the associated jigsaw pieces if you're okay with that.  The rest of this post assumes that's okay...

Not sure how you want to run the merge but I had some ideas.  Let me know what works, or doesn't work for you.  Most of this is "rough draft" and "thought experiment" level, I'll follow up with hard numbers if you approve of the concepts.

(Also, color me impressed how you've managed all these small nations without getting bogged down or confused.)

At the highest level-

I want to expand one of the yards to level 3.  I'd like the fluff level 4, but with the rules limits in place I'll have to wait a turn.

2 "New" designs will be produced. 
First, An extremely slow (2/3?) 'all guns and armor" ship design, with the major purpose of in system defense.  There will be absolutely minimal cargo, crew space, amenities, etc.  It's a hard knock life.  The motivation for the design is an "all defense" force.  They're designed purposefully to be defensive, to protect the current territory, and be supplied by the planet or station they're assigned to defend.  Crew service will be 1 week on, 2 weeks "off" with said "off" service being luxurious.  This is stickly "non-offensive" in nature, and designed to be non-threatening to our neighbors territories, while simultaniously being a "picking on us will cost you" warning.

The second design will be a "cruise ship" design.  With cargo and "luxurious" berthing and amenities (like casinos, bars, houses of ill repute, etc).  Out of character this is a fluff design for multiple purposes.  a la "killing 2 birds with one stone."  The first...  Building this will require a large investment in shipyards, but because its a "civilian" design and purpose, the various factions of the soon to be Capellan Confederation won't balk at investing in this as a purely "economic" and "non-militaristic" design.  OOC, this gives a good excuse to expand someone's yards using several minor faction's funds.  The design will be available (sellable) to corporations, giving an income resource to the shipyards in the "capellan agreement", and/or be available to outsource to yards outside the capellan's influence.  Further, the first few cruise liners will be owned and operated by a joint enterprise consisting of private firms from the Duchy of Liao, the Capellan Commonality, the Sian Commonwealth, and the St. Ives Mercantile League.  This will not only create a profitable luxury cruise line, but also build a large spy network for the (eventual) Capellan Confederation's navy.  This will give them great insight into what ships come and go from which port in various neighboring star nations.  Finally, these ships have been designed to provide a fleet collier ship...  With sufficient cargo space to carry 2 or more warship's worth of beans and bullets, and the troop quarters luxurious enough to make any "hardship" cruise a forgotten memory.

OOC-  Building slightly mobile defense platforms, for defense and diplomatically speaking not to "scare" our neighbors.  The "cruise ship" design is both fluff to help combine the star nations (if they're already in bed economically...), and to give a fleet collier design in the event Liao _must_ send ships beyond its borders and supply network.

I will type up much more fluffy and fun commentary for the above, assuming it's okay.

In addition, to reflect the serious corruption within the Capellan's sphere, I'm going to add to my costs for building and maintainiing things, and will likely add negative quirks...  But so that I don't handicap myself, if its okay, I'd like to "rules" offset this by saying capellan's get a negatives to their maintenance and ships (Blah-blah's NAC/20 has a tendancy to jam...  while naval reviews found this flaw, somehow the weapon system was green lit for use in the X ship design) kind of thing, but a postive somewhere else...  for "modern 3025" capellans, I'd say give them a "we work hard" bonus to compensate, but for this exercise, maybe a soft bonus in luck other places?  If nothing else, I want to fit the fleet engagements to the fluff.  And the fluff means "corruption" is a thing to deal with.  I could "pretend" my budget is much larger than it is, and fluff away the corruption that way, but that doesn't feel right to me.

By 3025, the Liao are known for thier machinations and espionage.  I'd like to establish that now (and theres so fluff that seems to point it for earlier times) and show that superious intelligence of an enemy is a tradition.  But there's no "spying" or "sabotatge" effects in your rules to date.  Is that worth tracking and dealing with?

Given sll this, I'm looking at 4 designs.  1 recharge station, 1 raider, 1 slow-assed system defense, and 1 collier that pretends to be the Royal Carribean of the stars.

Any issues with this?

Fleet doctrine would be-
Raider- 
Engage only at optimal ranges that refuse the opponent the opportunity to strike back.  If the opponent won't chase, attack a secondary target such as asteroid mining facilities when the primary is a planetary orbital system (shipyard/etc).  Prolonged engagements are ideal unless exceeding 50% fuel reserves, in which case its time to dance the bugout boogaloo.  By "ideal" engaging at maximum effective range, then turning and burning for a number of _turns_ until such a time as an optimal firing solution happens again is ideal.  (ie, fight at long range, sacrifice time (turns) to line up the optimal long range shot that _also_ ensures the ship/fleet can still move to keep the distance open.)

For encounters where the enemy has the maneuverability envelope on par or equal to ours, avoid conflict.
For encounters where we minimally hold an advantate (enemy is 4/6 vs. our 5/8), the goal is trifold-
  a.  Engage at range, and attempt to lure the enemy from position.
  b.  If the enemy will not budge, divert to secondary targets/lesser protected targets such as asteroid belt mining operations, jump station, other inhabited planets in system.
  c.  Where possible and the enemy allows, "draw" the enemy out of position, then circle around enemy and attack primary target.
  d.  in all matters, for raider or like vessels, retreat, with intelligence, is far perferable to destruction.

For "non-raider"
  a.  All units are required to defend and assist civilian vessels.  This includes all nations civilians.
  b.  Defense is key.  To defend an ally or defenseless one is holy and ensure's one's place in the next life.
  c.  Offense is key.  Sometimes to defend, one must attack.  If one must attack, one should do so knowing the will of the people is with him.

...

None of this is "official" yet, I want the GM's approval first, and then I'll fluff this (or whats approved) up proper.

Thanks,
Jester.

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 446
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #307 on: 23 June 2018, 00:20:57 »
Mr GM may have other ideas, but I think it may be best if he runs the various bits, does the unification this turn, and then hands it over to you for next turn.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #308 on: 23 June 2018, 05:21:43 »
Jester: That seems reasonable as a general approach. It actually fits well with things that are already happening - you already have a raider design in production in Capella, and there's also a Duchy of Liao ship with heavy armament and very scant crew accommodations, albeit one that's 4/6 instead of 2/3. Likewise, there's a dedicated recharge station being built en masse in St. Ives. I was trying to build up to a level 4 shipyard for the canonical Du Shi Wang in 2380, but I couldn't find a way to make a level 3 yard happen last turn. Also, if you're thinking of a cruise ship/scout ship design, you might want to take a look at this old thread for some inspiration(though don't feel obliged to do what I did).

When I was expecting the Capellans to stay NPC, the Capellan turn was going to be done separately. The events of note were going to be a FWL invasion starting in 2366, which rapidly pushes the various realms together into a merger in 2367, and the merged realm fights it out with the Mariks until 2369. Now that it's a PC nation, let's steal a bit of American history here - the Capellans unite in 2360 under an "Articles of Confederation"-style agreement, similar to the EU today. That gives you a fig leaf for treating the nation as a unified whole, so you only need to fuss with one budget and one set of designs, but it also looks weak and disorganized to outsiders. The Mariks invade on schedule, which gives you time to build a fleet that has a hope in hell against a dozen Heracles, and in the stress of the invasion the various realms truly unify, bring in a "Constitution"-style agreement, and become a real nation.

I suspect you'll be cool with that, so feel free to proceed on that basis. You're inheriting the following nations and budgets:
Capellan Commonality: Budget $25B.
Sarna Supremacy: Budget $26B.
Duchy of Liao: Budget $15B.
Sian Commonwealth: Budget $10B.
St. Ives Mercantile League: Budget $10B.
Tikonov Grand Union: Budget $2B.
TOTAL = $89B.

They're already set up as a unified whole on the master sheet. You have 2/1 shipyards in each of Capella, Sarna, and Aldebaran. Counting everyone's losses in combat(and treating lost civilian JumpShips as military ones, because you need to indemnify the merchants when you impress their ships), you currently have 640 fighters, 807 small craft, 78 DropShips, 1 JumpShip, 2 Qinru Zhe raiders, 2 Quzhujian destroyers, and 12 Chongzhi recharge stations. (As a side note, if you want to re-name those classes, feel free. I was trying to keep in flavour, but they're just bad Google Translate transliterations of "raider", "destroyer", and 'recharge", so there's no canon or clever design to worry about.)
« Last Edit: 23 June 2018, 05:34:14 by Alsadius »

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9943
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #309 on: 23 June 2018, 06:30:37 »
I'd like to also congratulate our GM for a fine spreadsheet.

Good job boss!

TT

Side note: Again... if I use Aquilla, which is a standard Jumper, primitive sure, but a standard Jumper, even though it was built as a Warship. Would you consider it that, a Jumper or a Warship?
« Last Edit: 23 June 2018, 06:43:04 by truetanker »
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #310 on: 23 June 2018, 06:46:25 »
Below is OOC, and a serious offer, but also for amusement.

Yard Space for Sale:

For coming turn 3, I anticipate having some class 4 yard space open. Interested parties should PM me if they want things built in them.  Intent is to defray cost of yard builds by building stuff for people who dont have/dont have enough space in class 4 yards of their own and dont want to budget for the 40 Billion CBill upgrade right now.

Our crack Lyran Shipwrights will be happy to offer their services in designing the ships as well, at a small additional charge.

Some restrictions may apply.  All usual terms and conditions apply.  The Lyran Commonwealth does not guarantee the suitability for military purposes of anything that they did not design themselves, though workmanship to usual Lyran ‘Teutonic Overenginnered’ standards is a given.  Your mileage may vary.  Offer regretfully not open to representatives of the Draconis Combine, Free Worlds League, Rim Worlds Republic, or the Terran Hegemony (not like you need it - just go collect the damn ascension crystals already)

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #311 on: 23 June 2018, 06:48:31 »
I'd like to also congratulate our GM for a fine spreadsheet.

Good job boss!

TT

Side note: Again... if I use Aquilla, which is a standard Jumper, primitive sure, but a standard Jumper, even though it was built as a Warship. Would you consider it that, a Jumper or a Warship?

Aquila is formally a ‘Primitive Jumpship’.  People think of them as cargo boats and ‘Jumpships’.  Psychologically they are not warships, any more than a supertanker is.  Rules wise, they are exactly warships, save that they trade a cheaper KF core for reduced jump range (15 LY instead of 30) and a smaller limit on maximum size.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #312 on: 23 June 2018, 08:40:52 »
Does anyone know if there are rules for "monitors"(i.e., system-defence ships with no KF drive, but that have WarShip-grade transit engines/structure/armour/weapons) in any of the books? Strategic Ops rules don't seem to cover them, and I don't own Interstellar Ops or Campaign Ops. If such rules exist, they may see some use for defending important planets like Terra. That won't happen this turn, but I'm planning ahead - if nothing else, it's a way to use up some of the TH's rather ludicrous budget on something that's less threatening, but it might also be a good choice for giving the Taurians and RWR a hope in hell when the Reunification War comes around.

Amusingly, the spreadsheet supports them perfectly well right now - the KF drive cost is based on the drive, and the engine/SI/armor costs and weights are based on the transit engine, so a ship with a maneuvering drive and no KF drive gets the x5 cost multiplier of a station with the SI and armour rules of a WarShip, which is actually exactly what I want. But I don't want to use spreadsheet quirks to allow new ship classes, so I'm leaving that off the table for now.

---

The Terran Hegemony remains confident in the current superiority of its overall fleet, but the individual strength of some units being placed in service by minor states has led to some concerns over the potential for attritional losses if combat were ever to occur. In response to these worries, the Terran Hegemony has introduced a new battleship designed to overawe any potential competition - the Monsoon. Weighing a third more than any other active ship, and mounting almost twice as much armour as any other Terran vessel, the Monsoon is truly a force to be reckoned with.

(OOC note: The canon Monsoon mounts 20x medium NPPC, which has been invented by this point in canon, but not in our tech. I've replaced each one with a pair of NL-45, which have the same total mass, damage, heat, and range. This makes it substantially more deadly against fighters than the canonical Monsoon, but it's a bit more of a sandblaster against WarShips.)

Due to the need for shipyard space to produce newer classes, the old Dart cruiser is being removed from active production. The existing fleet of 14 Darts will be maintained in active service. 

Budget: $750B
Monsoon R&D: $14.556B
Shipyard upgrades at Terra(2x level 6, 2x level 4, 2x level 3): $130B
Shipyard upgrades at Keid(level 4, 2x level 2, 2x level 1): $50B
Maintenance: $97.103B

6x Monsoon: $87.336B
10x Quixote: $117.660B
6x Essex: $35.898B
6x Lola: $39.792B
4x Black Lion: $28.172B
6x Cruiser: $45.138B
6x Vigilant: $24.282B
6x Bonaventure: $30.216B

576x Fighter: $2.88B
324x Small Craft: $3.24B
120x DropShip: $36B

Research: $7.727B

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9943
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #313 on: 23 June 2018, 08:53:15 »
Monitor is not a legal tern or canon in BT. Hence it's an ilegal design by rights, but if your allowing them....

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7179
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #314 on: 23 June 2018, 08:56:04 »
Does anyone know if there are rules for "monitors"(i.e., system-defence ships with no KF drive, but that have WarShip-grade transit engines/structure/armour/weapons) in any of the books? Strategic Ops rules don't seem to cover them, and I don't own Interstellar Ops or Campaign Ops. If such rules exist, they may see some use for defending important planets like Terra. That won't happen this turn, but I'm planning ahead - if nothing else, it's a way to use up some of the TH's rather ludicrous budget on something that's less threatening, but it might also be a good choice for giving the Taurians and RWR a hope in hell when the Reunification War comes around.

Amusingly, the spreadsheet supports them perfectly well right now - the KF drive cost is based on the drive, and the engine/SI/armor costs and weights are based on the transit engine, so a ship with a maneuvering drive and no KF drive gets the x5 cost multiplier of a station with the SI and armour rules of a WarShip, which is actually exactly what I want. But I don't want to use spreadsheet quirks to allow new ship classes, so I'm leaving that off the table for now.
See XTRO Boondoggles, page 19.
"The monitors possessed fifty percent more firepower than
vessels of the same mass. Unfortunately they had double the crew and their
maintenance costs were triple that of a similar size vessel."
« Last Edit: 23 June 2018, 09:21:19 by Maingunnery »
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

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

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #315 on: 23 June 2018, 08:57:22 »
Monitor is not a legal tern or canon in BT. Hence it's an ilegal design by rights, but if your allowing them....

TT

Not yet. I've seen references to them on the forums before, but I didn't know if that was fan rules or if it was in a book I didn't own. For now, it's just a question about the contents of other rulebooks.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #316 on: 23 June 2018, 08:57:44 »
Does anyone know if there are rules for "monitors"(i.e., system-defence ships with no KF drive, but that have WarShip-grade transit engines/structure/armour/weapons) in any of the books? Strategic Ops rules don't seem to cover them, and I don't own Interstellar Ops or Campaign Ops. If such rules exist, they may see some use for defending important planets like Terra. That won't happen this turn, but I'm planning ahead - if nothing else, it's a way to use up some of the TH's rather ludicrous budget on something that's less threatening, but it might also be a good choice for giving the Taurians and RWR a hope in hell when the Reunification War comes around.

Amusingly, the spreadsheet supports them perfectly well right now - the KF drive cost is based on the drive, and the engine/SI/armor costs and weights are based on the transit engine, so a ship with a maneuvering drive and no KF drive gets the x5 cost multiplier of a station with the SI and armour rules of a WarShip, which is actually exactly what I want. But I don't want to use spreadsheet quirks to allow new ship classes, so I'm leaving that off the table for now.

I believe, in canon, there is no such animal, and that the topic was one that in the pat caused heated and nasty debate.

The concern I believe is that if you allow a warship without the vast mass fraction of a KF Core, it becomes hideously force multiplied - as an example...  you could take my Tyr, bump her to 6/9 thrust, triple her SI/Armor, and probably add 50 % to her wetiht if fire as well.  And her cost would plummet in the bargain. 

That said, if anyone can find rules, I am prepared to be corrected.

Edit:  If your concerned about the size of the THN... maybe rearrage their political priorities?  “Confident that their navy could esily handle the combined and forseeable fleets of every minor power at once, while leaving half its fleet home to take tea, Hegemony Politicans instead reprioritized spending to fund civilian priorities like terraforming venus, inventing and building an HPG network, and in a move triggered by watching ancient earth media, buying new personal vehicles for every man, woman, and child in the Sol system under the “Oprah Initiative.”
« Last Edit: 23 June 2018, 09:30:03 by marcussmythe »

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #317 on: 23 June 2018, 10:08:52 »
I believe, in canon, there is no such animal, and that the topic was one that in the pat caused heated and nasty debate.

The concern I believe is that if you allow a warship without the vast mass fraction of a KF Core, it becomes hideously force multiplied - as an example...  you could take my Tyr, bump her to 6/9 thrust, triple her SI/Armor, and probably add 50 % to her wetiht if fire as well.  And her cost would plummet in the bargain. 

That said, if anyone can find rules, I am prepared to be corrected.

Edit:  If your concerned about the size of the THN... maybe rearrage their political priorities?  “Confident that their navy could esily handle the combined and forseeable fleets of every minor power at once, while leaving half its fleet home to take tea, Hegemony Politicans instead reprioritized spending to fund civilian priorities like terraforming venus, inventing and building an HPG network, and in a move triggered by watching ancient earth media, buying new personal vehicles for every man, woman, and child in the Sol system under the “Oprah Initiative.”

Re monitors, it seems like the same trade-off as stations. A Pratham has about the same damage potential as a Heimdaller(and can keep it up much longer), with twice the armor, for 1/10 of the cost. But it can't leave the system, so it's vastly less flexible - a nation with 20 Heimdallers will obliterate one with 200 Prathams, because they can actually all be in the same place at the same time and defeat the enemy in detail(per Lanchester's laws, the 20x Heimdaller fleet would be about twice as powerful as the 200x Pratham, as long as they can repair between engagements and the stations are in 200 different places).

Re the Oprah Initiative, perhaps I should. The TH fleet genuinely should be astonishingly powerful by your standards, but maybe I'm over-doing it a bit. They're not quite as crazy as they look - note how weak they are to fighters, and how much combat power they lose to their giant cargo bays - but they have 123 ships and are building 50 new ones this turn. The biggest fleet elsewhere is probably the FWL, with 8+8 - even if they're individually better(and every PC ship really is a lot better than its TH counterpart), they're still badly outnumbered.

I'll give it some thought.
« Last Edit: 23 June 2018, 10:19:33 by Alsadius »

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7179
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #318 on: 23 June 2018, 10:23:23 »
Re monitors, it seems like the same trade-off as stations. A Pratham has about the same damage potential as a Heimdaller(and can keep it up much longer), with twice the armor, for 1/10 of the cost. But it can't leave the system, so it's vastly less flexible - a nation with 20 Heimdallers will obliterate one with 200 Prathams, because they can actually all be in the same place at the same time and defeat the enemy in detail(per Lanchester's laws, the 20x Heimdaller fleet would be about twice as powerful as the 200x Pratham, as long as they can repair between engagements and the stations are in 200 different places).

Re the Oprah Initiative, perhaps I should. The TH fleet genuinely should be astonishingly powerful by your standards, but maybe I'm over-doing it a bit. They're not quite as crazy as they look - note how weak they are to fighters, and how much combat power they lose to their giant cargo bays - but they have 123 ships and are building 50 new ones this turn. The biggest fleet elsewhere is probably the FWL, with 8+8 - even if they're individually better(and every PC ship really is a lot better than its TH counterpart), they're still badly outnumbered.

I'll give it some thought.
There is a canon example of the monitor concept, the prototype (just without KF drive) nearly broke apart on the first test as the KF drive also functioned as the keel. The second set of prototypes added massive reinforcements, taking away most of the weight savings, but leaving enough to upgrade the weaponry by 50%. But with the downsides as describes by my earlier post.
 
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

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

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #319 on: 23 June 2018, 11:13:28 »
Re monitors, it seems like the same trade-off as stations. A Pratham has about the same damage potential as a Heimdaller(and can keep it up much longer), with twice the armor, for 1/10 of the cost. But it can't leave the system, so it's vastly less flexible - a nation with 20 Heimdallers will obliterate one with 200 Prathams, because they can actually all be in the same place at the same time and defeat the enemy in detail(per Lanchester's laws, the 20x Heimdaller fleet would be about twice as powerful as the 200x Pratham, as long as they can repair between engagements and the stations are in 200 different places).

Re the Oprah Initiative, perhaps I should. The TH fleet genuinely should be astonishingly powerful by your standards, but maybe I'm over-doing it a bit. They're not quite as crazy as they look - note how weak they are to fighters, and how much combat power they lose to their giant cargo bays - but they have 123 ships and are building 50 new ones this turn. The biggest fleet elsewhere is probably the FWL, with 8+8 - even if they're individually better(and every PC ship really is a lot better than its TH counterpart), they're still badly outnumbered.

I'll give it some thought.

Well, FWIW, if you want to let people put drives on stations and call it a monitor (or whatever), I wont lose sleep.  Heck, if you want to let them put docking collars on stations so they can ride from system to system on docking collars, I'll try to find a way to use that to my advantage.

As for 8+8... Im hearing the Lyran people chant 'we want 8 and we wont wait'.. but of course they will have to.

Atarlost

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 559
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #320 on: 23 June 2018, 12:07:53 »
There's no more reason for monitors to have maintenance issues than for the Star League to be unable to build a working carrier.  Someone contracted incompetent morons to do the construction and used the failure to justify abandoning the concept, presumably in the name of graft. 

I'm not sure why nobody else built monitors, though.  Even with no weight savings at all they can't fail to be cheaper as long as the minerals used in jump cores are scarce.  The political advantages are also significant for many states.  They're a local force the central government can't be tempted to reallocate ever and they're a defense against warships that can't be construed as aggressive and can be argued to not count against any naval arms limitations treaties that might eventually exist.

I think the problem from the PtBs point of view is that they're hard to get rid of.  Every non-territorial shipyard would have had them when the Star League fell and any that didn't get attacked with warships or lots of Alamos in the first or second succession war would still have them until they were destroyed by Clanners or Blakists.  That means retconning some operations. 

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #321 on: 23 June 2018, 12:12:46 »
Well, unless they are insanely cheaper, or insanely better, than a warship, they are kinda terrible.  Warships move, and move other things.  Dropships can be moved, and are handy to move things around in a system.  Take the KF drive out of a warship, and its just a giant glorified dropper that can never ever move strategically.

Maybe slap a few over capital and other super-special systems.  Ifififififif they are really good and cheap.  But even if they are 1/10 the cost of a warship...  if your a 100 planet empire and you build 10 over each planet and the other team just builds a hundred warships, hes goong to cruise around and crush them all with advantage of numbers.

Might be worthwhile, as I said, over a few places so important yould be permanently stationing warships -anyway-... but even for that Im more likely to go combat droppers or fighter squadrons.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #322 on: 23 June 2018, 12:24:24 »
Well, unless they are insanely cheaper, or insanely better, than a warship, they are kinda terrible.  Warships move, and move other things.  Dropships can be moved, and are handy to move things around in a system.  Take the KF drive out of a warship, and its just a giant glorified dropper that can never ever move strategically.

Maybe slap a few over capital and other super-special systems.  Ifififififif they are really good and cheap.  But even if they are 1/10 the cost of a warship...  if your a 100 planet empire and you build 10 over each planet and the other team just builds a hundred warships, hes goong to cruise around and crush them all with advantage of numbers.

Might be worthwhile, as I said, over a few places so important yould be permanently stationing warships -anyway-... but even for that Im more likely to go combat droppers or fighter squadrons.

Of course. The use cases are all shipyard systems and capitals, IMO, with maybe a few scattered ones in the small empires like the Taurians. Trying to build a navy composed of monitors for a major power would be obvious idiocy, which is why even a game as layered with old rules cruft as BT doesn't have rules for them.

Actually, maybe that's the limitation to impose - they take shipyard space(at the same build rate as AMCs, 4/yard/turn), so it's not even possible to use them in non-yard systems.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #323 on: 23 June 2018, 12:27:20 »
Better to just leave them out, IMHO.  I think stations get us there without needing a non-canon unit.

Vition2

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 856
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #324 on: 23 June 2018, 13:30:51 »
When it comes to monitors the biggest issue is that we don't have official construction or cost rules.  We have some basic, fluff-based, guidelines for construction but nothing specific and zero reference for costs and maintenance issues.  And I'll note that the monitors were better in combat per ton than a warship

What we have is what was mentioned above by Maingunnery:
- 50% more firepower (this suggests to me that the "keel" is roughly 25% of the mass of the warship, rather than the 45.25% of K-F Drives)
- Double crew requirements
- Triple the maintenance cost of a similar sized vessel (suggests to me a 250kt monitor will have a similar maintenance cost as three 250kt warships)

So it's not as simple as just ripping out the K-F drive and saying that's good, there's more to it.  So Alsadius, this is your story, but if you want to use what little canon there is on these ship types, you are looking at a significant amount of house ruling the creation and upkeep of these vessels.

While I'm not participating in this exercise, I am following it with some amount of interest, but I know my vote counts for less than those actually participating.  I see adding these into the mix as being more trouble than they are worth - you'd have to balance their costs with other warships and dropships as well as basically create their construction and cost rules from the ground up.

Regardless, I'll still be watching this with interest to see what people come up with, particularly in how the actual fleets begin to take shape into proper fleet doctrines.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #325 on: 23 June 2018, 13:42:55 »
Yeah, you guys have convinced me. I think they ought to exist, but if I'm modifying canon based on how I think things ought to work, monitors wouldn't be my starting point.

Kiviar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #326 on: 23 June 2018, 15:10:50 »
Here is my turn for 2361-70. I hope you guys like reading.

Panic grips the Federated Suns!

The brief battle in the Highspire system in 2358, or the "Highspire Affair" as it later became known as, blindsided the Federated Suns. Both the Administration and Public could not believe that the upstart Capellans had not only managed to construct a warship which rivaled their own and used it so effectively, while their own navy looked amateurish and incompetent in comparison.

The media was swift to place the blame on the commander of the FSS Albion, Rear Admiral Charles Arthur. Accusations flew both from the public, and government that the admiral was incompetent, that he lacked drive and aggressiveness, that he had attained his station by the efforts of a secret society, that he was secretly a Draconis agent, and strangely, that he fancied Capellan tabbies.

In an attempt to put themselves in front of the situation as best as they could, the princes agreed that an investigation was needed to determine the cause of their near-cataclysmic failure. The following year an inquiry in to the Highspire incident was launched. While some wished to steer the investigation more towards deficiencies in procurement and intelligence, public, and ultimately political pressure quickly switched the focus again to Admiral Arthur and his handling of the battle. In his testimony the Admiral vehemently defended his actions, claiming that had he been given proper information about the Capellan ship's capabilities and sensible orders from the Admiralty he would have not engaged in such a risky operation, or that if the rest of the fleet hadn't been deployed "in the ass-end of nowhere" he would have had a chance. He further went on to claim that he was told, in person, by the head of the Federated Suns Navy Intelligence (FSNI) prior to embarking on his cruise, that the "Cappie tub only has half of what their propaganda claims".

The FSNI head subsequently denied any such conversation ever took place.

On August 20th 2364 Avalon City Police, acting on information leaked to them from the military, enacted a search of Admiral Arthur's residence. Upon conclusion of the search, the Admiral was arrested and charged with, possession of child pornography, possession of a controlled substance, racketeering, and unsafe storage of firearms. With such serious charges leveled against him it seemed certain that the now disgraced Admiral would spend the remainder of his life behind bars.

Mere hours after his release on bail on the night of September 3rd, officers of the Avalon City Police responded to calls of a disturbance at the Arthur residence. Upon entering the home, officers quickly found the Admiral dead of an apparent overdose. The next 48 hours on New Avalon were a wash with conflicting and contradictory reports either claiming that both the Admiral and his Lawyer, were both found dead at the residence, That the Admiral had been murdered by a prostitute, or that the Admiral had killed himself with a single point-blank shot to the back of his head.

In the end, it was established by the lead investigator Detective Andrew McMurray, that Admiral Arthur had indeed committed suicide by ingestion of some unknown narcotic which had caused an immediate and fatal cardiac arrest. The detective also established that, contrary to information circulating online, there was no evidence of any struggle at the residence, and that security camera footage showing several unknown individuals arriving at the home in an unmarked sedan was fabricated.

Soon after the police closed the investigation in to Admiral Arthur's suicide, the Highspire inquiry also reached its conclusion. After four years of investigation and deliberation it was decided that fault for the Higspire incident rested solely on Admiral Arthur's poor handling of the situation. His overconfidence and lack of tactical acumen were to blame for the deaths of the 6 AFFS pilots, 32 crewmen and near-loss of the FSS Albion. The inquiry also recommended that to combat the rise of any further officers of Arthur's "caliber" that a new and independent, and most importantly strictly naval academy be constructed on New Avalon, and that a through screening process be enacted for any officers selected for warship command.

While many decried the investigation as a sideshow, claiming the real fault lie with the bureau of ships for not equipping the Albion-class with effective sensors, and FSNI for for failing to execute their job with even the basic hint of competence, the public had seized on the spectacle, and any and all other AFFS deficiencies were quietly swept under the rug.

It is also interesting to note that, while generally ignored by the public, shortly after the conclusion of the Highspire inquiry a memo from the privy council to the head of Universal Ship Yards was leaked online on Delevan. The document, which was  swiftly denounced as a forgery, consisted of one line "Following OPCM investigation, any further bids must include NCSS."

Aftermath

With the Federated Suns Navy paralyzed by the Highspire Affair, there was no will or capacity to enact any risky new projects like in the decade prior. This lead to the unfortunate cancellation of several promising new projects, or alterations to the Galahad and Albion programs which would have filled serious gaps in FSN capability.

One silver lining however is that with a sizable hunk of funding available and construction of new warship classes career suicide at this point, an unassuming procurement program called the Recharge Initiative was able to gain serious traction.

Federation-class recharge Station

After the conflict in Tikonov, it was readily apparent that to properly enact their strategy of rapid deployment and maneuver warfare, in both offence and defense, the Federated Suns required the capability to quickly recharge both jumpships and warships. Command circuits proved too costly, and while they delivered troops rapidly it proved to be in too limited a capacity, and it was not feasible to have their limited stable of warships deployed evenly across the frontier, and be able to react en-masse while relying on their own jump-sails for recharge.

To solve this a group of planners and engineers, who called themselves the Recharge Initiative, put forth the plan to rapidly construct and deploy inexpensive charging stations across the Federated Suns. The stations would be primarily armed with fighters which would both keep production costs down, and allow the stations to project substantial power far outside of the range of even capital-class weapons.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Federation-class Recharge station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $287,325,000.00
Magazine Cost: $92,240.00
BV2: 10,048

Mass: 400,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust:
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
24 AC 2
48 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Federation-class Recharge station
Mass: 400,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 4,800
Thrust
Safe:
Maximum: 0
Controls: 400
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 4,000
Total Heat Sinks: 142 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 558 pts Standard 1,393
Fore: 93
Fore-Left/Right: 93/93
Aft-Left/Right: 93/93
Aft: 93

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 70 490
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
23 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 161
102 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 714
12 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 84
396 Bay Personnel 0
25 1st Class Passengers 250
50 2nd Class Passengers 350
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
4 AC 2 Nose 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 FR 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 FL 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 AR 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 AL 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 Aft 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 1920 42.67
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 10000 50.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
36 Bay Small Craft 7,200 2
36 Bay Fighter 5,400 8
36 Bay Fighter 5,400 2
36 Bay Fighter 5,400
3 Energy Storage Battery 300,000
59,000 Cargo, Standard 59,000

Administration
Budget - 91
Upkeep - 3.126

Upgrades
Delevan shipyard (1->2) - 10

R&D
Federated-class Recharge Station - 0.287

Construction

Ships
2x Galahad-class Cruiser - 21.575
4x Albion-class Frigate - 28.354

Stations
20x Federation-class Recharge station - 5.746

Misc
10x Jumpship - 5
14x Lt Dropship - 4.2
2000x Fighter - 10

Research & Other
Research - 1.209
« Last Edit: 23 June 2018, 16:21:05 by Kiviar »

Atarlost

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 559
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #327 on: 23 June 2018, 15:26:47 »
I would suggest that monitor rules can be so simple as to be practically trivial. 

Declare that the KF core is an integral part of the warship heat management system and is what makes warships not have the higher price multiplier of dropships. 

Monitors are built exactly like warships with a lump of inert something other than germanium taking the place of the KF core.  The only construction difference is a lower price multiplier.  Since it's a multiplier you just multiply the final value the spreadsheet gives by some 0<n<1. 

Monitors are diplomatically and politically treated as space stations. 

The only balance decision is what the new multiplier should be and since you're not actually simulating out combats you don't really need to worry about fine balance between monitors and stations and any number you pull out of your hat is as good as any other as long as it's less than than that for warships.

Kiviar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #328 on: 23 June 2018, 20:02:54 »
Does the Davion fleet admiral have exact numbers on Fighters, Small Craft and Cargo for his ships? Unfortunately they don't automatically appear on the TRO workup on the spreadsheet for some reason.

I do, and Alsadius has read-access to all my master sheets as well. Unfortunately there were quite a few errors in the spreadsheet he originally provided me the link for. I'll get around to copying things over to the fixed sheet and modifying my turn 1 post tomorrow at some point.

As for sub-caps that is just down to Alsadius copying them from my turn spreadsheet over to the main one.

Starfox1701

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 521
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #329 on: 24 June 2018, 01:43:02 »
I would suggest that monitor rules can be so simple as to be practically trivial. 

Declare that the KF core is an integral part of the warship heat management system and is what makes warships not have the higher price multiplier of dropships. 

Monitors are built exactly like warships with a lump of inert something other than germanium taking the place of the KF core.  The only construction difference is a lower price multiplier.  Since it's a multiplier you just multiply the final value the spreadsheet gives by some 0<n<1. 

Monitors are diplomatically and politically treated as space stations. 

The only balance decision is what the new multiplier should be and since you're not actually simulating out combats you don't really need to worry about fine balance between monitors and stations and any number you pull out of your hat is as good as any other as long as it's less than than that for warships.

I have a counter proposal. I have been researching advanced kf drive systems. In doing SI I have had several conversations with the writers and learned a few things. While there really isn't a valid rational from a technology point of view for lack of monitors there is a very real danger of them replacing true warships without serious limiting factors.

Because of the nature of warship keels and and kf drive subsystems like docking collars and kf booms constructing a monitor is far more that just replacing the kf drive with a more reinforced internal structure. Building a monitor requires fusing both warship and dropship construction methods and requires very high end shipyard facilities class 4 or better at least. While theoretically the limits on monitor size are the same s warships moving any craft larger than 300,000 tons becomes problematic because of the collar requierments. Such vessels are also ruinously expensive due to the size of their custom kf booms. Despite being significantly heavier than a equal tonnage warship spaceframe, a monitor spaceframe lack the same rigidity of their warship counterparts. This has the net effect of making the spaceframe more vulnerable to damage than that of a standard warship. Crew requirements are also higher though this was a foreseen consequence because of the increased numbers of weapons and the additional mantaince these ships required due too unique internal structure.

Warning these are experimental rules and are untested. They may not be balanced.

Constructing a monitor, alterations to warship construction rules.

1 Do not mount a kf drive
2 When determining SI follow the first steps as normal. When determining mass multiple SI × ship mass and ÷ by 200.
3 Monitors receive half as many SI points rounding up then a warship of the same SI and mass to reflect the less robust nature of the spaceframe.
4 Recommendation that tonnage be limited too 300k.

When calculating cost use dropship modifiers on SI as the KF boom is part of a ships actual spaceframe.