Author Topic: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race  (Read 194704 times)

Vition2

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 856
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1260 on: 16 November 2018, 17:45:59 »
Edit: I also added links to all the TC designs (Taurus I, Taurus I v2, Siesta, Siesta Tanker, Matador, Nova) next to where they are listed.  Can someone other than me verify that they are viewable?
Confirmed, they all go to the proper places in the thread.  Only suggestion is to change the Taurus "v2" to "block II" or vice versa on the design - but that's merely for ease of finding rather than potentially looking past the proper version at first.

Also, does anyone know a good BT planet map that we can keep updated with territorial changes? I've said a lot about capturing these planets or those, but I haven't been able to keep track of the front lines, and I keep going back to Sarna's static maps. Those are a pain to use, and will inevitably lead to inconsistencies.
I have some practice with this, but it's probably not the most efficient way of going about it.  I'll screenshot a pdf map from one of the official products (if you look at my sig, Maps for DragonCat's AU, it'll lead you to one which I think was based on the FM: 3085 one - if you want to use it you can, but there's quite a few noncanon systems and it's going to be missing some others), then paste it to paint (ugh, I know), then convert the names and systems to cleaner versions.  I'm actually working on the map from FM: SLDF, but there's no way it'll be done before your next turn.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1261 on: 16 November 2018, 18:24:36 »
Alsadius - I hate to ask any more of you this weekend, but as it will help meep me entetained and designing next week -

Could you do tech this weekend?

I assume this weekend the tech procedure would be:
1.)  Lasers spread to everyone (per old rules)
2.)  Tech Rolls are Made, Techs Gained.

And in the future it would be:
1.)  Texhs spread
2.)  Tech rolls made

We could do it the other way as well, or have them be independent (you just researched a tech that also spread to you, so sorry!) but it seems to me that having spread before new tech is researched helps the have-nots keep up, while still giving a bonus to being the first to ‘get it’

If you wanna wait till the whole turn goes up in one post, thats fine, ofc - i just enjoy designing, and if I can design some before my turn, my turn goes faster!

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1262 on: 16 November 2018, 21:39:09 »
Confirmed, they all go to the proper places in the thread.  Only suggestion is to change the Taurus "v2" to "block II" or vice versa on the design - but that's merely for ease of finding rather than potentially looking past the proper version at first.
Thanks and tweaked.

Also, Xotl resolved quarters cost for official Battletech.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1263 on: 17 November 2018, 00:21:20 »
The Rim Worlds Republic has derived an important deterrence factor from its Vittoria-class destroyers, but they were always intended as a stopgap solution and not a comprehensive fleet. To help build a more well-rounded fleet, a modified version of the Vittoria will be added to service. Dubbed the Caesar, the new ship has been stretched somewhat to allow a massive new reactor to be built into the ship. The tremendous energy output will be fed into a gigantic bank of heavy energy weapons, almost all of which are aimed directly forward. Despite occasional jokes involving the ships being dubbed "NelRod Augustus", the expected impact of a dozen large PPCs was expected to be significant against any plausible target, and the high speed of the ship(especially compared to plausible Lyran opponents) is expected to keep it nimble enough to choose its engagement range fairly freely. Unlike the more passive Vittoria model, the armour is also heavily biased to the nose of the ship, in line with expected doctrine. The ship has also been given a meaningful fighter wing, along with cargo to match, and a small Marine complement.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Caesar
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $6,102,208,004.00
Magazine Cost: $24,085,000.00
BV2: 80,535

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4.0
Maximum Thrust: 6.0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
12 Naval PPC Heavy
16 Naval Laser 55
80 LRM 20 (IS)
108 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Caesar
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 120,000
Thrust
Safe: 4.0
Maximum: 6.0
Controls: 1,250
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (12 Integrity) 226,250
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 55
Structural Integrity: 120 60,000
Total Heat Sinks: 3860 Single 3,326
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 6250 points 2,550
Fire Control Computers: 86
Armor: 552 pts Standard 1,200
Fore: 150
Fore-Left/Right: 100/100
Aft-Left/Right: 75/75
Aft: 52

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 30 210
Life Boats: 30 210

Crew And Passengers:
35 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 350
110 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 770
60 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 420
182 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 1,274

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
30 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
8 LRM 20 (IS) Aft 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
8 LRM 20 (IS) FR 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
8 LRM 20 (IS) FL 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
8 LRM 20 (IS) AR 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
8 LRM 20 (IS) AL 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
20 LRM 20 (IS) LBS 120 240 (24-C) Long 200
20 LRM 20 (IS) RBS 120 240 (24-C) Long 200
12 Naval PPC Heavy Nose 2700 1800 (180-C) Extreme-C 36,000
4 Naval Laser 55 FL 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 FR 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 AL 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 AR 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 17000 85
LRM 20 (IS) Ammo 4800 800

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
18,000 Cargo, Standard 18,000 2
48 Bay Fighter 7,200 8
6 Bay Small Craft 1,200 2
2 Bay Conventional Infantry (IS), Foot 10 1

BUDGET: $38,000m
Maintenance (@100%): $9,383m
Caesar R&D: $3,051m
3x Caesar: $18,306m
76x small craft: $760m
300x fighter: $1,500m
Research(2A, 2S, 1M): $5,000m

Remaining: $0

---

I have some practice with this, but it's probably not the most efficient way of going about it.  I'll screenshot a pdf map from one of the official products (if you look at my sig, Maps for DragonCat's AU, it'll lead you to one which I think was based on the FM: 3085 one - if you want to use it you can, but there's quite a few noncanon systems and it's going to be missing some others), then paste it to paint (ugh, I know), then convert the names and systems to cleaner versions.  I'm actually working on the map from FM: SLDF, but there's no way it'll be done before your next turn.

That is definitely overkill for what I'm thinking. The closest I can think of is a MegaMekNet server, actually - it's existing software, and it's designed to track planet ownership. But something web-based would be better, if it exists. I suspect nothing of the sort does, but I wanted to ask.

Alsadius - I hate to ask any more of you this weekend, but as it will help meep me entetained and designing next week -

Could you do tech this weekend?

I assume this weekend the tech procedure would be:
1.)  Lasers spread to everyone (per old rules)
2.)  Tech Rolls are Made, Techs Gained.

And in the future it would be:
1.)  Texhs spread
2.)  Tech rolls made

We could do it the other way as well, or have them be independent (you just researched a tech that also spread to you, so sorry!) but it seems to me that having spread before new tech is researched helps the have-nots keep up, while still giving a bonus to being the first to ‘get it’

If you wanna wait till the whole turn goes up in one post, thats fine, ofc - i just enjoy designing, and if I can design some before my turn, my turn goes faster!

I've typically kept it together for admin convenience, and it's not like you've ever been the bottleneck on resolving turns. But it's no problem - if I'm posting a bunch of army info, I can add tech to it. And yes, spread-then-roll was how I intended to resolve it. Seems much less aggravating.

Thanks and tweaked.

Also, Xotl resolved quarters cost for official Battletech.

Interesting. I figured he'd never respond, but glad to see he found a solid block of time and churned out a bunch of answers. We'll keep the existing rules this turn, but I'll think about adjusting it for next time.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1264 on: 17 November 2018, 08:00:03 »
But a ratio between capital damage and standard damage of somewhere between 25:1 and 50:1 will apply for any purpose I can think of right now.
I spent some time leafing through designs based on this.   Essentially every heavy fighter can be expected to survive a Barracuda strike at 25:1.   

At 50:1 there is more separation in outcomes.
All medium/light fighters and Chippewa dies.  Cyclone/Cyclonas dies as do all medium lights (Falco/Bueto, Wakizashi, Tanto).
Slayer, Riever, and Stuka typically survive a nose hit with significant structural damage.  Yari is here. 
The "Hydaspes class" survives even a wing hit at 50:1.  This include Shu (structural damage) and Rager (no structural damage).

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1265 on: 17 November 2018, 08:47:32 »
Remind me to publish the Ferro-Aluminum upgrade of the Shuu next turn... :)

Kiviar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1266 on: 17 November 2018, 13:22:21 »
Federated Suns Turn 7
2410-2419

Fluff
Pending, but this sums up what is going on in the Suns right now nicely.

New Units

Padfoot Battlestation



Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Padfoot Battlestation
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $138,480,000.00
Magazine Cost: $2,864,000.00
BV2: 12,562

Mass: 30,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust:
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
48 Machine Gun (IS)
6 Naval AC 10
6 Naval Laser 55
10 Capital Launcher White Shark

Class/Model/Name: Padfoot Battlestation
Mass: 30,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 360.00
Thrust
Safe:
Maximum: 0
Controls: 30.00
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0.00
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0.00
Structural Integrity: 1 300.00
Total Heat Sinks: 840 Single 769.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 2500 points 255.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 128 pts Standard 160.00
Fore: 36
Fore-Left/Right: 25/25
Aft-Left/Right: 15/15
Aft: 12

Dropship Capacity: 1
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 14 98.00
Life Boats: 0.00

Crew And Passengers:
14 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 140.00
37 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 259.00
30 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 210.00
0 Bay Personnel 0.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
Steerage Passengers 0.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4.00
6 Naval AC 10 Nose 180 600 (60-C) 12,000.00
6 Naval Laser 55 Nose 510 330 (33-C) 6,600.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
5 Capital Launcher White Shark FR 75 150 (15-C) 600.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
5 Capital Launcher White Shark FL 75 150 (15-C) 600.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) 4.00

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 100 4,000.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4800 24.00
Naval AC 10 Ammo 240 48.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
2,522 Cargo, Standard 2,522 2
8
2


Turn

Administration
Budget - 103
Rollover - +14.6
Upkeep - 28.3

R&D
Padfoot Battlestation - 0.139

Construction

Shipyards
Upgrade Layover 1-2 - 20
Build Layover 1 - 5

Ships
1x Galahad 10.7
1x Crucis 11.7

Stations
2x Federated-class recharge station - 0.57
6x Northumberland Battlestation - 6
30x Barghest Battlestation - 2.2
30x Padfoot Battlestation - 4.1

Misc
390x Fighter - 1.9

Research & Other
Research
M - 5
S - 5
A - 5
Total = 15

Repairs - 12

[Edit] Noticed a huge error in my maintenance calculation so I had to fix everything.
« Last Edit: 17 November 2018, 23:18:07 by Kiviar »

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1267 on: 17 November 2018, 21:43:20 »
2400-2410
2410-2419, right?

Edit: I also get 128.509 when I add things up with 20B for Layover 1->2 and 5B for Layover 1?
Also the text says 1x Galahad but the cost says 2x Galahad?

Kiviar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1268 on: 17 November 2018, 22:20:25 »
Yeah just a couple typos when i fixed my post from earlier. Everything should be correct now.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1269 on: 17 November 2018, 22:24:52 »
Yeah just a couple typos when i fixed my post from earlier. Everything should be correct now.
Looks good.  I'm buying popcorn :)

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 447
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1270 on: 17 November 2018, 22:48:31 »
Cargo capacity on the Padfoot? And how do you plan on resupplying or relieving the crew with no small craft bays or drop collars? Have everyone spacewalk over?  :D

Kiviar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1271 on: 18 November 2018, 00:01:57 »
Cargo capacity on the Padfoot?

Should be fixed, didn't notice that the new spreadsheet still had the old equipment bay problem.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1272 on: 18 November 2018, 09:21:20 »
And how do you plan on resupplying or relieving the crew with no small craft bays or drop collars? Have everyone spacewalk over?  :D
Apparently, it's possible to dock directly with any bay door.  However, that takes about a half hour to do safely with a specialized dropship, and an hour with a typical dropship.  This seems implausibly long so a spacewalk sounds about right. 

The Mother has the same issue but it has a grav deck so the plan is long occupancy rather than shifts.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1273 on: 18 November 2018, 12:39:51 »
Turn 7 - Technology and Armies

Technology
Technologies will now be operating under the new system outlined at the end of turn 6. As the last vestige of the old system, all players will unlock lasers (small, medium, and large) in turn 7.

For the first turn, I'll go through this in a bit more detail than normal, to show you all how it works. Each billion gets you a roll of a 12-sided die. Rolls of 4-12 are failures. Rolls of 1 get you the first un-researched tech, rolls of 2 get you the second un-researched tech, and rolls of 3 get you the third un-researched tech.

As the Capellans specified $1B for research without specifying the field, I'm assuming they'll put it into strengthening, since that seems to be the fan favourite this turn. The FWL said 2/5/3, so I'll assume that's in the same M/S/A order as the tech sheet.

Miniaturization
Techs: AC/10, PPC, AC/20. (Note that anyone who rolls AC/20 will receive AC/10 instead, as it's a prerequisite)

Terrans: $5B. Rolls = 2, 3, 11, 9, 3. Gain PPCs.
Draconis: $2B. Rolls = 6, 10. No tech.
FedSuns: $5B. Rolls = 4, 11, 2, 1, 12. Gain AC/10.
Capellans: Nil.
Free Worlds: $2B. Rolls = 1, 6. Gain AC/10.
Lyrans: $1B. Roll = 9. No tech.
Rim Worlds: $1B. Roll = 5. No tech.
Taurians: Nil.
Marians: Nil.
United Hindus: $1B. Roll = 3. Gain AC/10 (would be AC/20, but prerequisite not met).

Next turn, spreading by adjacency will give the five Great Houses a free 25% shot at PPCs, and everyone except the RWR will get a free 25% shot at AC/10s.

Strengthening
Techs: Improved Ferro-Aluminum Armour, Binary Laser("Blazer") Cannon, Castles Brian

Terrans: $5B. Rolls = 6, 1, 2, 6, 8. Gain Improved Ferro-Aluminum.
Draconis: $6B. Rolls = 9, 2, 7, 5, 9, 8. Gain Blazer. (Dracs seem to love themselves some lasers this game.)
FedSuns: $5B. Rolls = 9, 12, 4, 12, 12. No tech.
Capellans: $1B. Roll = 6. No tech.
Free Worlds: $5B. Rolls = 10, 3, 10, 3. Gain Castles Brian.
Lyrans: $4B. Rolls = 4, 5, 10, 12. No tech.
Rim Worlds: $2B. Rolls = 7, 9. No tech.
Taurians: Nil.
Marians: Nil.
United Hindus: $1B. Roll = 6. No tech.

Next turn, spreading by adjacency will give the five Great Houses a free 25% shot at IFA, the TH/FS/LC a free 25% shot at Blazers, and the TH/CC/LC/MH a free 25% shot at Castles Brian.

Advancement
Techs: Mechs, Naval Gauss, Lithium-Fusion Battery

Terrans: $5B. Rolls = 2, 8, 3, 9, 8. Gain Naval Gauss.
Draconis: $2B. Rolls = 1, 1. Gain Mechs.
FedSuns: $5B. Rolls = 10, 8, 10, 7, 8. No tech.
Capellans: Nil.
Free Worlds: $3B. Rolls = 3, 10, 2. Gain Naval Gauss.
Lyrans: $4B. Rolls = 6, 5, 11, 12. No tech.
Rim Worlds: $2B. Rolls = 5, 9. No tech.
Taurians: $1B. Roll = 8. No tech.
Marians: Nil.
United Hindus: $1B. Roll = 5. No tech.

Next turn, spreading by adjacency will give the four remaining Great Houses and the MH a free 25% shot at NGauss, and the TH/FS/LC a free 25% shot at Mechs.

Castles Brian
With Castles Brian entering the game, I'm going to digress into rules on them. I tried making a few by canon rules, but they were odd beasts. A 15 level deep, 1 hex wide CB with the maximum construction factor has 450 capital HP, and can mount somewhere close to 20,000 tons of capital weapons, which seems passable enough...but it costs $36B before you actually mount anything. That's simply not workable. There are slightly cheaper ways to build them, but not cheaper enough to justify the cost in any plausible setting. So, I'm just going to ignore the rules regarding building costs and say by fiat that a typical CB structure has stats like that, but costs a mere $1B. Because the most useful targets for gameplay(i.e., shipyards) are in orbit, and capital weapons don't have ranges long enough to protect anything in geostationary orbit, CBs are more useful as deterrents than as true fixed defences in the same way as orbital stations are. They're still good for protecting ground targets, and for denying orbital bombardment in the protected areas, however.

A CB will cost $1B to purchase, not $5B the way I originally outlined, because I don't think anyone would spend $5B. The weapon load will be 4x HNPPC, 24x AR-10 (with effectively unlimited ammo for most purposes), 100 of the latest Mech-sized defensive weapons, 100 of the latest PD weapons, and sufficient underground storage space to hide a full regiment and keep it fed and operational for a couple months. They'll also be very difficult to detect from orbit(until and unless they open fire), but if they are found, they'll have 300 capital-scale armour, and 150 capital-scale construction factor, which means they'll remain fully operational until they've taken about 350 capital damage, declining rapidly thereafter. Also, as most CBs will be occupied and maintained by an army regiment, they will incur no maintenance costs in their own right.

Note that, per the rules below, armies will buy CBs for you. The Army will protect its own areas of responsibility first(mostly important terrestrial cities and some border strongpoints), so a shipyard planet might have fewer CBs than you'd expect if you just let the Army do it. As such, the Navy can buy its own Castles Brian as well. Same cost, same stats.

Armies
Armies are being modelled now, under more or less the same rules as specified in my original post on the topic. Here is the full list of Army units:

Infantry regiment: $100m, combat power 1.
Vehicle regiment: $300m, combat power 2.
Mech regiment: $800m, combat power 3. Unlocked by Mechs technology.
Advanced Mech regiment: $2,500m, combat power 4. Unlocked by Mechs and XL Fusion technology.
Aerospace regiment: $800m, combat power 2, fights in space.
Advanced Aerospace regiment: $2,500m, combat power 3, fights in space. Unlocked by XL Fusion technology.
Small DropShip: $300m, carries 1/12 of a fully supplied regiment.
Medium DropShip: $500m, carries 1/4 of a fully supplied regiment. Unlocked by Medium DropShips technology. (Note that large DS are too unwieldy to land, and so are not used by the Army).
JumpShip: $500m, carries 3 DropShips.
Castle Brian: $1,000m. Unlocked by Castles Brian technology. No maintenance.
HyperPulse Generator: $1,000m. Unlocked by HPG technology. No maintenance.

The Army will always receive the same budget as the Navy. Its budget will be spent first on maintenance, which will always be 10% of the cost base of regiments and DS/JS in service. The remainder will be divided evenly between regular procurement and catch-up procurement.

Regular procurement does not take into account the current level of equipment or losses incurred, and merely tries to keep expanding the army. It will always buy new units in proportion to their target weights. This is intended to make sure that new tech doesn't eat the entire budget - medium DS, in particular, would suck away the whole budget if I wasn't careful.

Catch-up procurement, conversely, tries to figure out where the Army is short of targeted equipment levels, and buy that in particular. This is intended to ensure that losses get replaced, and the Army doesn't just try to work without transport for a century because some knucklehead lost the fleet. The algorithm is a touch complex, but the short version is that it'll try to catch up on individual classes that are under-supplied without going too far over on the total category weights.

In cases of rounding errors, infantry regiments will be added or removed to make up the difference.

The category weights are broken up by dollar value.
- Ground units are 30% of the budget (of which 9% is infantry, 9% is vehicles, 9% is mechs, and 3% is advanced mechs).
- Aero units are 35% of the budget (of which 26.25% is standard aero and 8.75% is advanced aero [i.e., a 3:1 ratio]).
- Transport units are 30% of the budget. There will be twice as much spent on medium DS as small DS, and enough JS will be bought to carry them all.
- Installations are 5% of the budget(of which 3% is Castles Brian and 2% is HPGs).

The Army will still be able to impress civilian DS and JS into transportation roles. However, those civilian units will be totally useless in combat, except as decoys in very extreme situations(at which point they will have no weapons and 1/10 the armour of comparable military craft). The number they can impress is equal to their own numbers, so a nation with 20 JS and 60 DS can get another 20 civilian JS and 60 civilian DS to carry troops. Any losses of civilian vessels will be treated as Army losses instead.

Current Army Compositions
All players will receive an Army with total value equal to five times their current budget, created by this algorithm. No losses from previous turns have been considered, as all were funded from Navy budgets. The ratios will be a bit different than implied by the other post - more ground forces, less aero and transport - but that just means that they're going light on the things that the Navy can do for them if you so choose. To be clear, this is the composition as of the end of player turns on turn 7 - there will be no additional building this turn, but any losses will be deducted from these values.

Terrans: 6,117 infantry, 2,039 vehicle, 1,785 aero, 2,622 small DropShip, 874 JumpShip (=218.5 regiments carried)
Draconis: 926 infantry, 308 vehicle, 269 aero, 396 small DropShip, 132 JumpShip (=33 regiments carried)
FedSuns: 817 infantry, 271 vehicle, 237 aero, 348 small DropShip, 116 JumpShip (=29 regiments carried)
Capellans: 767 infantry, 258 vehicle, 226 aero, 332 small DropShip, 111 JumpShip (=27.67 regiments carried)
Free Worlds: 845 infantry, 282 vehicle, 246 aero, 362 small DropShip, 121 JumpShip (=30.17 regiments carried)
Lyrans: 884 infantry, 295 vehicle, 258 aero, 379 small DropShip, 126 JumpShip (=31.5 regiments carried)
Rim Worlds: 294 infantry, 100 vehicle, 88 aero, 129 small DropShip, 43 JumpShip (=10.75 regiments carried)
Taurians: 179 infantry, 61 vehicle, 53 aero, 78 small DropShip, 26 JumpShip (=6.5 regiments carried)
Marians: 193 infantry, 63 vehicle, 55 aero, 81 small DropShip, 27 JumpShip (=6.75 regiments carried)
United Hindus: 207 infantry, 68 vehicle, 60 aero, 88 small DropShip, 29 JumpShip (= 7.25 regiments carried)

Transition Rules
On your turn 8, you may choose to transfer any of your accumulated JS, DS, and fighter forces to the Army. 160 fighters will equal one aero regiment, to keep costs equal. The Army will pay all maintenance costs on all transferred units from that point forward. However, there will be no returning these units thereafter - once they're gone, they're gone. This is a transitional rule due to the game rules changing, and will not be available thereafter.
« Last Edit: 19 November 2018, 13:10:55 by Alsadius »

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1274 on: 18 November 2018, 12:45:49 »
Well, thats 9B well spent.  7.5% chance or so.  Still, I essentially threw away a cruisrr for nothing - will have to think very hard before I risk money on research again, given the way I roll in this game.

Also:  Those army sizes are amazingly huge.  Not sure what this means for building troopships - converting an entire class of naval vessels into hybrid troopships lets me lift ankther 24 regiments - when the army already has dropships for about that many - do I see any value in letting them carry twice as many troop into battle?  Do I think theyll ever need to deliver more than 24 regiments (note Im asking the naval board - no dout the army would find the idea of troop-transport warships appealing)

Hey, Mr. GM - which choice do I make/where do I spend money to roll better?  At this rate, Lyran dice are gonna be a meme.
« Last Edit: 18 November 2018, 14:04:54 by marcussmythe »

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1275 on: 18 November 2018, 14:16:21 »
How are we going to handle the TCN here?   (And the MH similarly?)

The TCN redesigned the Taurus I a decade ago and bought smallcraft to support army operations so they can already transport a similar capacity.  Options:
1) The TCN provides bonus transport for the TCA allowing the TC to accomplish significantly more in (counter)invasion operations.
2) The TCN successfully lobbies the protector for the transport part of the Army's budget and assumes responsibility for transport going forward.
3) The TCN abandons all efforts along these lines with dropshuttles & redesign just a sunk cost.

In the case of (1) or (2), I'd need to know how much transport tonnage is appropriate.  For an armor regiment, I was figuring 10800 tons worth of vehicle transport + 2K tons of supplies + life support for vehicle crews & techs.  It looks like you are using much deeper supplies, perhaps 10800 tons of supplies as well? (That seems high?) In that case, a single Taurus I would support an armor regiment + an infantry regiment rather than two armor regiments.

Another awkward element here is that I was treating navy ASF garrisoned on planets as a strategic reserve in case of Navy losses.  Since the army apparently has 8480 ASF the navy ASF garrisons (~1K ASF) are small in comparison.  There is still significant value associated with a strategic reserve in case of losses but handing over the strategic reserve to the army negates that.  If the Navy's ASF reserve is left in Navy hands can it effectively function as an ancillary garrison?

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1276 on: 18 November 2018, 15:29:16 »
Well, thats 9B well spent.  7.5% chance or so.  Still, I essentially threw away a cruisrr for nothing - will have to think very hard before I risk money on research again, given the way I roll in this game.

Also:  Those army sizes are amazingly huge.  Not sure what this means for building troopships - converting an entire class of naval vessels into hybrid troopships lets me lift ankther 24 regiments - when the army already has dropships for about that many - do I see any value in letting them carry twice as many troop into battle?  Do I think theyll ever need to deliver more than 24 regiments (note Im asking the naval board - no dout the army would find the idea of troop-transport warships appealing)

Hey, Mr. GM - which choice do I make/where do I spend money to roll better?  At this rate, Lyran dice are gonna be a meme.

Yeah, you and Kiv got very poor dice rolls. I'm not sure if AC/10 for $15B is worse than nothing for $9B, but I'm sure you'd both be quite happy to steal some luck from the TH, DC, and/or FWL right now.

Re army sizes, I wanted them bigger than canon, because canon is ludicrously small. It's still far smaller than RL (1400 regiments would be about the size of a major power in WW1, give or take. It's less than a division per world.), but it's at least usefully large. There's a reason why random planets have had fights with 5-10 regiments on a fairly regular basis. You'll notice that lift capacity is incredibly small by comparison - medium DS will help somewhat, but even at max civilian usage your Army can carry 63 regiments, or 126 combat power, into battle. That's not much for a major multi-world campaign. Extra lift capacity will see usage for sure, especially if you want to do broad-front advances.

How are we going to handle the TCN here?   (And the MH similarly?)

The TCN redesigned the Taurus I a decade ago and bought smallcraft to support army operations so they can already transport a similar capacity.  Options:
1) The TCN provides bonus transport for the TCA allowing the TC to accomplish significantly more in (counter)invasion operations.
2) The TCN successfully lobbies the protector for the transport part of the Army's budget and assumes responsibility for transport going forward.
3) The TCN abandons all efforts along these lines with dropshuttles & redesign just a sunk cost.

In the case of (1) or (2), I'd need to know how much transport tonnage is appropriate.  For an armor regiment, I was figuring 10800 tons worth of vehicle transport + 2K tons of supplies + life support for vehicle crews & techs.  It looks like you are using much deeper supplies, perhaps 10800 tons of supplies as well? (That seems high?) In that case, a single Taurus I would support an armor regiment + an infantry regiment rather than two armor regiments.

Another awkward element here is that I was treating navy ASF garrisoned on planets as a strategic reserve in case of Navy losses.  Since the army apparently has 8480 ASF the navy ASF garrisons (~1K ASF) are small in comparison.  There is still significant value associated with a strategic reserve in case of losses but handing over the strategic reserve to the army negates that.  If the Navy's ASF reserve is left in Navy hands can it effectively function as an ancillary garrison?

1) Yup, transport capacity on Navy ships will be used this way. All Navy-owned capacity is in addition to Army-owned capacity.
2) No special rules for different powers - I want this to be simple and low-effort.
3) This is also an option, of course.

That said, Army units protect your planets and invade enemies. They don't load themselves into naval fighter bays. (Interservice rivalry is such fun). Any Navy fighters that aren't deployed to ships are acting as planetary garrisons - that's how I've done things from the start, to be clear. You can move them around, and presumably will as you build new ships. But you can't raid the Army fighter supply, you need to have your own. (Also, for reference, the correct ratio is 108:1, not 160:1. The 160:1 ratio only applies to passing units off to the Army - it's for balance, but the fluff is that they're spreading the fighters around a bit more and still buying the added base facilities etc. needed to make new regiments).

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1277 on: 18 November 2018, 15:56:07 »
1) Yup, transport capacity on Navy ships will be used this way. All Navy-owned capacity is in addition to Army-owned capacity.
Cool.  So, Navy-owned transport needs to carry 10800 tons worth of units to transport a regiment?

What is the appropriate cargo transport for an armor unit's supplies?  I was thinking 10%, but I'm not sure that's right given the numbers above.

Also, are the upper limits to the amount of useful transport capacity significantly lower than "everything"?

Edit: It sounds like there is a divergence in army policy: Army ASF will under no circumstances load into Naval ASF bays, but Army Armor & Infantry will load into Naval ships.  Correct?  Hence, we should regard army ASF as only used defensively during invasions with Naval ASF support being useful/required for (counter)invasion?  Or is some of the army transport for ASF?

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 447
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1278 on: 18 November 2018, 18:13:21 »
On one hand, damn I got Blazers instead of IFA.

On the other hand, WOO MECHS!

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9952
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1279 on: 18 November 2018, 18:46:40 »
I feel sorry for you Multi-planetary Realms! In the Hundreds or so...

Marians: 193 infantry, 63 vehicle, 55 aero, 81 small DropShip, 27 JumpShip (=6.75 regiments carried)


I've got only four with a contested fifth!

Buhahaha!

My Navy only has 10 Jumpers...

TT :drool:

SERIOUS FUBU : I made a mistake somewhere... so in hopes to keep going, I OFFICALLY am making the last TO&E posting TURN 8! So I'll be an observer until Turn 9. ( Pending on what is needed. )

TT  :'(
« Last Edit: 18 November 2018, 18:50:26 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

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 447
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1280 on: 19 November 2018, 02:30:57 »
Due to the Marian SNAFU, my budget has been adjusted one final time. Research costs haven't been changed of course, just slightly less ship construction. Info on Master sheet is correct, can't be arsed correctly my entry however many pages ago that was.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1281 on: 19 November 2018, 05:55:19 »
Cool.  So, Navy-owned transport needs to carry 10800 tons worth of units to transport a regiment?

What is the appropriate cargo transport for an armor unit's supplies?  I was thinking 10%, but I'm not sure that's right given the numbers above.

Also, are the upper limits to the amount of useful transport capacity significantly lower than "everything"?

Edit: It sounds like there is a divergence in army policy: Army ASF will under no circumstances load into Naval ASF bays, but Army Armor & Infantry will load into Naval ships.  Correct?  Hence, we should regard army ASF as only used defensively during invasions with Naval ASF support being useful/required for (counter)invasion?  Or is some of the army transport for ASF?

10800 tons will carry 108 heavy tanks, which is slightly more than you need for the vehicles of a tank regiment(since some will be light). However, that will not store your tank crews and necessary supplies very well. By game rules, you can get 5 crew per bay sleeping on the floor, but no supplies, and no support equipment. Vehicle bays are a bit flexible in that you can put two lights in the space of a heavy, so perhaps you can cram in the support trucks as well, but it'll be tight. And even if you get the equipment in, you won't have space for the supplies, so it'll only be useful for repositioning garrisons etc., not for combat operations.

Let's use the following as our ground rules, for regiments that are carried into combat with a reasonable supply load. I'll break it up a bit as well - you can decide if the people sleep in bays or quarters, whether the units are in cargo or bays, and so on.

Infantry: 1400 personnel, 24 light support vehicles(or 1000 tons cargo space, if packed away), 2000 tons supplies.

Vehicle/Mech/Aero: 840 personnel, 108 combat vehicles of appropriate type(or 7000 tons cargo space, if packed away), 48 light support vehicles(or 2000 tons cargo space, if packed away), 6000 tons supplies.

Note that an aero regiment may want substantially more cargo space to allow for capital missile storage, as that is not included in the values above. An aero regiment expecting serious space combat (even if they're fighting from ground bases) will likely want an additional 10-20,000 tons of missiles.

On one hand, damn I got Blazers instead of IFA.

On the other hand, WOO MECHS!

I figured you wouldn't complain too much. And if you did, I'd just swap your results with the Lyrans ;)

I feel sorry for you Multi-planetary Realms! In the Hundreds or so...

I've got only four with a contested fifth!

Buhahaha!

My Navy only has 10 Jumpers...

TT :drool:

SERIOUS FUBU : I made a mistake somewhere... so in hopes to keep going, I OFFICALLY am making the last TO&E posting TURN 8! So I'll be an observer until Turn 9. ( Pending on what is needed. )

TT  :'(

Re army strength, um...well...you've been colonizing, I guess? Your budget was set for your navy, but that means your army's forces are ridonkulous. In the Marian case, these numbers are kind of silly. But if the Reunification War ever happens, I guess you'll be a guerrilla hotbed.

Re the error, can you elaborate? I don't always understand your turns very well, and I'm not sure what error you're referring to here.
« Last Edit: 19 November 2018, 07:56:09 by Alsadius »

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1282 on: 19 November 2018, 08:35:55 »
Musings:

0.  Nelrod Augustus:  What are the percieved drawbacks of doubling firepower by going for an all one arc armament?  If they are not severe, this will become the new standard, as no navy can afford to pass up an easy opportunity to double their throw weight - Ive flirted with, and avoided implementing, such ships for this reason.  Does their adoption by NPC factions carry the GMs impremature that this idea doesnt have some hidden drawback?

I.  RND:  Some napkin back calculation indicates that spending 12B a turn on research gets you on average just barely over 2 techs a turn (we will treat here as 2 per turn).  No amount of spending gets you 3 - though at ~30B per turn, your getting close.

3 B per turn gets you on average exactly 1 per turn.

0 of course gets you nothing - BUT...

Lets assume one neighbor - spending the 12 per turn, and getting 2 per turn.  If you spend nothing, you hit an equilibrium state where your neighbor has 8 techs you do not, you steal 2 per turn, and they gain 2 per turn.  (On averages).  So your neighbor is spending 12 B more than you for a roughly 4 turn tech advantage.

Is 4 turns unopposed with a given advantage worth 12B per turn?  A battleship per turn?

If you throw in the minimal 3 B per turn, the equilibrium state is reached when he has 4 techs you do not.  You steal one, invent one, he invents 2.  Your 2 turns behind, now, and saving a 9B heavy CA in expenses per turn.  Is a 2 turn advantage worth a heavy cruiser?

No answerers, just questions.

II.)  Maintenance:  I notice a lot of the houses are cutting to 100% maintenance - lowering training budgets.  A few havent.  It will be interesting to see if spending half again as much on maintenance (again, about a battleships worth per turn!) gives results that are worth that battleship - and note theyd have to be worth a -lot more- than 1BB if a fight happens to be worthwhile, as most turns you dont get a battle.

Will be interesting again to see the right answer here.

III.)  Fluff
a.)  Director of Lyran R&D fired in disgrace.  R&D Campus unofficially renamed “LCN CA Vaporware” - as it cost as much as a cruiser, and didnt produce any tech, obviously its a cruiser.

b.)  Missile Manufacturers lose contracts.  Fighter contractor stays in buisness by well organized campaign shifting blame to Missile contractors.

c.)  Commander at Vega publically given medals and recogniton for material victories and extricating the wall of battle.  Privately given final posting in training command with instructions to develop and implement better tactics than the ones he was taught were doctrine.


 
« Last Edit: 19 November 2018, 08:40:17 by marcussmythe »

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1283 on: 19 November 2018, 08:49:14 »
Infantry: 1400 personnel, 24 light support vehicles(or 1000 tons cargo space, if packed away), 2000 tons supplies.
The headcount here is higher than I imagined since the infantry themselves are only 756 (=28*3*3*3)?  That seems like a quite large tail.  Or are you working off Platoon of 28, Company=3 platoons, battalion = 3 companies, regiment = 3 battalions?  I need a to calculate ratios since the TCA uses a nonstandard organization.
Vehicle/Mech/Aero: 840 personnel, 108 combat vehicles of appropriate type(or 7000 tons cargo space, if packed away), 48 light support vehicles(or 2000 tons cargo space, if packed away), 6000 tons supplies.
840 personnel seems about right for Mech/Aero between pilot & almost full tech crews.  It seems a bit light for vehicles given that vehicles require an extra ~400 for the crew.   On the other hand, maybe you don't need a full tech crew per vehicle.  Taking into account the light vehicles, perhaps we should think of this as 1 tech crew / 2 ASF or mech and 1 tech crew / 4 combat vehicles.

For all, the supplies are significantly higher than I was imagining.  A landed regiment will be incapable of movement, even maxed out with 4 lift hoists/support vehicle and a large fraction of mass dedicated to cargo.  Perhaps a large fraction of the supplies can be left aboard transport for on-call use?  That would leave the regiments able to move on the ground.

Presumably this also means we can load army ASF although only for ground operations?  I guess the good news is that the army ASF will be able to do effectively unlimited bombing runs given the supplies.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1284 on: 19 November 2018, 09:25:32 »
Musings:

0.  Nelrod Augustus:  What are the percieved drawbacks of doubling firepower by going for an all one arc armament?  If they are not severe, this will become the new standard, as no navy can afford to pass up an easy opportunity to double their throw weight - Ive flirted with, and avoided implementing, such ships for this reason.  Does their adoption by NPC factions carry the GMs impremature that this idea doesnt have some hidden drawback?

The two big ones are mobility and damage control. A slow, sluggish ship with only one useful arc is a deathtrap - you'll get one shot off, and then they'll kite you to death. This was only attempted because they know they only have one meaningful opponent(you), and that opponent's ships are far slower than 4/6. Similarly, a ship with one arc can't roll ship to present undamaged armour - it has to fight with that one arc, all the time. You can counteract this somewhat by armour placement, but it's still unfortunate if they happen to hole your only good facing. (And of course, you can't move all your armour forward, because that means you're vulnerable to fighters on the flanks)

The RWR is not powerless, but they know they'll be on the back foot if they ever fight you. As such, they're trying some fairly odd things, because their constraints are also fairly odd. It's sort of like if you knew you were going to need to fight the THN in a couple turns.

I.  RND:  Some napkin back calculation indicates that spending 12B a turn on research gets you on average just barely over 2 techs a turn (we will treat here as 2 per turn).  No amount of spending gets you 3 - though at ~30B per turn, your getting close.

3 B per turn gets you on average exactly 1 per turn.

0 of course gets you nothing - BUT...

Lets assume one neighbor - spending the 12 per turn, and getting 2 per turn.  If you spend nothing, you hit an equilibrium state where your neighbor has 8 techs you do not, you steal 2 per turn, and they gain 2 per turn.  (On averages).  So your neighbor is spending 12 B more than you for a roughly 4 turn tech advantage.

Is 4 turns unopposed with a given advantage worth 12B per turn?  A battleship per turn?

If you throw in the minimal 3 B per turn, the equilibrium state is reached when he has 4 techs you do not.  You steal one, invent one, he invents 2.  Your 2 turns behind, now, and saving a 9B heavy CA in expenses per turn.  Is a 2 turn advantage worth a heavy cruiser?

No answerers, just questions.

It's diminishing returns, and consciously so. Researching a tech gives you an average of a four-turn edge over having it spread, either because you'll lose it to spread in ~4 turns or you're saving the ~4 turns it'd take to pick it up from spread. If you spend $1B/turn in a category, that gives you an average cost of $4B per tech researched, or $1B per tech-turn. The second billion implies a marginal cost of $1.33B per tech-turn. The third billion has an implied cost of $1.78B per tech-turn, and the fourth is $2.37B. (Each is 1/3 more than the previous, FYI.).

If you think that you'd be willing to spend $2B per tech-turn, then $3B per turn in a category makes sense, but $4B per turn is a waste, because the fourth billion has a higher marginal cost than that. (This may be where an economics background is useful, because thinking this way is very natural to me)

Obviously, the value of a tech scales with nation size. The TH can do a lot more with IFA armour than you can, and you can do a lot more than the Marians can. I fully expect that bigger nations will do more research, and smaller nations will rely more on spread, which means they'll expect to be somewhat behind on tech. That's fine, IMO, and replicates canon fairly well.

My expectation was that it'd be worth it for a Periphery nation to spend perhaps $1B/category tops, a Great House to spend perhaps $2-3B per category, and the TH to spend perhaps $5-8B per category. That's a long-term average, though, and important techs like IFA will skew it somewhat. After all, IFA could easily be worth a battleship a turn, because that's what it could save you in combat losses if you're in a lot of fights.

II.)  Maintenance:  I notice a lot of the houses are cutting to 100% maintenance - lowering training budgets.  A few havent.  It will be interesting to see if spending half again as much on maintenance (again, about a battleships worth per turn!) gives results that are worth that battleship - and note theyd have to be worth a -lot more- than 1BB if a fight happens to be worthwhile, as most turns you dont get a battle.

Will be interesting again to see the right answer here.

Yes, it will be interesting ;)

The headcount here is higher than I imagined since the infantry themselves are only 756 (=28*3*3*3)?  That seems like a quite large tail.  Or are you working off Platoon of 28, Company=3 platoons, battalion = 3 companies, regiment = 3 battalions?  I need a to calculate ratios since the TCA uses a nonstandard organization.840 personnel seems about right for Mech/Aero between pilot & almost full tech crews.  It seems a bit light for vehicles given that vehicles require an extra ~400 for the crew.   On the other hand, maybe you don't need a full tech crew per vehicle.  Taking into account the light vehicles, perhaps we should think of this as 1 tech crew / 2 ASF or mech and 1 tech crew / 4 combat vehicles.

For all, the supplies are significantly higher than I was imagining.  A landed regiment will be incapable of movement, even maxed out with 4 lift hoists/support vehicle and a large fraction of mass dedicated to cargo.  Perhaps a large fraction of the supplies can be left aboard transport for on-call use?  That would leave the regiments able to move on the ground.

Presumably this also means we can load army ASF although only for ground operations?  I guess the good news is that the army ASF will be able to do effectively unlimited bombing runs given the supplies.

My impression from everything I've ever looked into on army operations is that the tail is always insanely large. Way larger than you'd ever expect, and often several times as big as the fighting forces. I picked both those numbers to be round numbers of infantry bays(50 for infantry, 30 for others), but they're both in the ballpark of a 1:1 teeth:tail ratio, and the support vehicles were intended to be reflective of that as well. IIRC, the rules for technicians are one team of 7 techs per lance, so that'd be 189 per armoured regiment. But the clerks, quartermasters, supply truck drivers, military police, doctors, cooks, etc., etc., etc. will make up the difference.

What sort of force organization were you thinking?

As for army units, you can carry them to battle, and you can launch ASF if they're in bays. But you can't just use them when sailing around looking for a battle, only if it's part of a transportation job. Basically, I want to make sure that you buy your own fighters for your own work and don't just gobble up the army's supply to metagame the budget. But they're still on the same team, and common sense will usually prevail.
« Last Edit: 19 November 2018, 09:34:08 by Alsadius »

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1285 on: 19 November 2018, 09:55:32 »
The RWR is not powerless, but they know they'll be on the back foot if they ever fight you. As such, they're trying some fairly odd things, because their constraints are also fairly odd. It's sort of like if you knew you were going to need to fight the THN in a couple turns.

Frankly, the LCN has no interest in fighting the RWR, or any conflict with the RWR.  If I can sell the Archon (is it still Marsden?  Hed be OOOOLD by now, I think - but weve not seen the marriage to or movement of the archonship to House Steiner... long live HOUSE MARSDEN, the Steiners were a mixed bag at best...) or whoever rules on Tharkad Arcturus!.  Wow, butterflies...

ANWAY, now that I'm done being distracted...

Id like to send some of the Heimdallers (good sensors, good reach with fighters for recon) off to conduct anti-piracy patrols with the RWN.  Era of good feelings.  Build trade ties.  (lets make sure theres at least one recharge-station-jump-route from my space to their capital for that very reason)  Similarly, if I can talk the Archon into a NAP or mutual defense treaty or W/e, that would also be great.

Quote
It's diminishing returns, and consciously so. Researching a tech gives you an average of a four-turn edge over having it spread, either because you'll lose it to spread in ~4 turns or you're saving the ~4 turns it'd take to pick it up from spread. If you spend $1B/turn in a category, that gives you an average cost of $4B per tech researched, or $1B per tech-turn. The second billion implies a marginal cost of $1.33B per tech-turn. The third billion has an implied cost of $1.78B per tech-turn, and the fourth is $2.37B. (Each is 1/3 more than the previous, FYI.).

If you think that you'd be willing to spend $2B per tech-turn, then $3B per turn in a category makes sense, but $4B per turn is a waste, because the fourth billion has a higher marginal cost than that. (This may be where an economics background is useful, because thinking this way is very natural to me)

Obviously, the value of a tech scales with nation size. The TH can do a lot more with IFA armour than you can, and you can do a lot more than the Marians can. I fully expect that bigger nations will do more research, and smaller nations will rely more on spread, which means they'll expect to be somewhat behind on tech. That's fine, IMO, and replicates canon fairly well.

Agreed, and just musing.  I may make a conscious choice (after getting burned last turn) to go for the minimal 3B on tech research, and spend the difference between that and the 'normal' 9B or more on training. 

Real world militaries argue a lot about the relative values of numbers, training, and tech - and this author has always felt that if I could only have ONE, I'll take training every time, followed by numbers, followed by 'capable but not bleeding edge' tech.  Id rather have a well trained pilot in an F-4 than a guy driving an F-14 with no stick time, any day and twice on Sunday.

My guess RE: Training is that we've not seen real training DISPARITIES hit in a fight... most forces have been similar in training weights when the fight starts... so we dont have a feel for what that looks like.  Besides that, the DC, FWL, and FS all had heavy damage to repair and/or big building programs that they prioritized - which given a peaceful turn will prove to be very much the right choice.

Quote
My impression from everything I've ever looked into on army operations is that the tail is always insanely large.

IRL tail has increased as logistic needs have increased over time.  Im not sure the same conditions obtain as strongly in the BTU, where your war machines run on water (Fusion engines with maybe some fuel cell engines should be a default for any offensive formations.  Defensive formations can afford ICE), shoot lasers, and where the crew for the biggest war machine is one.  Logistics are made rather a lot less challenging if rather than a flotilla of ships sailing for weeks delivering fuel to a fleet of trucks driving for days and consuming fuel to deliver fuel, you instead throw it all on a dropship or small craft that can deliver thousands (or hundreds) of tons anywhere in the world in hours, onto unprepared runways.

So I anticipate the BTU needs less logistical tail on planet than an IRL military force, and I dont THINK that weve seen IRL levels of logistical tail in the writing, though I havent read more than a half-dozen of the novels, and I'd guess that few of the BTU authors have a background in logistics.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1286 on: 19 November 2018, 10:31:53 »
My impression from everything I've ever looked into on army operations is that the tail is always insanely large. Way larger than you'd ever expect, and often several times as big as the fighting forces. I picked both those numbers to be round numbers of infantry bays(50 for infantry, 30 for others), but they're both in the ballpark of a 1:1 teeth:tail ratio, and the support vehicles were intended to be reflective of that as well. IIRC, the rules for technicians are one team of 7 techs per lance, so that'd be 189 per armoured regiment. But the clerks, quartermasters, supply truck drivers, military police, doctors, cooks, etc., etc., etc. will make up the difference.

What sort of force organization were you thinking?
I'm not sure which question you are asking. 

W.r.t. TDF: The Taurus I will be/is designed to support TDF organizations.  Oversized platoons (30) generating slightly larger Infantry regiments, oversized Combat vehicle regiments (162), oversized Battlemech regiments (148), and ASF Air Divisions (24).

W.r.t. "realism", I had in mind something more purely infantry than modern armies with heavy APCs (~= Bradley Fighting Vehicle) which seem better modeled as combat vehicles.   Think of WWI style infantry, except with more modern weapons where 75-80% of headcount is soldiers.  If you want to go with mechanized infantry (~=Humvee) as the default then this seems somewhat more plausible although that would imply 8 ton bays so it would be good to know.  The infantry supply numbers also seem quite high at 1.4 tons/person.  I'd expect .2 tons (=400 lbs)/person.  That's quite a bit of MREs, spare weapons, tents, shovels, etc...  I'm also skeptical that mechs/armor will be able to run through their own weight in armor, ammo, and spare parts before destruction.  I'd imagine ~20% being more plausible particularly with battlefield salvage for armor.  Burning through a significant fraction of 55 tons of supplies per vehicle suggests losing a long string of combats yet with light enough damage that it's repairable.  If the army ASF are using capital missiles in atmosphere routinely, then the supply there seems well-justified.  Navy ASF appear to require approximately zero armor/ammo/spare parts as they either survive naval combat with negligible damage on average or are destroyed. 

W.r.t. rules, in some places they talk about a full tech team per combat unit.  In the maintenance rules, this doesn't seem to be required. The minimum number of techs+astechs required to perform maintenance is ~14 teams (~100 people) with techs beyond that able to repair battlefield damage.  Having twice as many techs seems like the minimum reasonable choice.  Every tech team also needs a repair bay to be fully functional although some of the light support vehicles may provide a reasonable means for effective field repairs.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1287 on: 19 November 2018, 11:17:34 »
It's worth noting that nuclear-powered vehicles are rare in this era, and ICE is the rule for anything except ASF(and, once Smegish builds a few, mechs). Fuel weight will be a massive part of the logistical need of a force, which is part of why the big Terran transports include integral liquid storage bays. I haven't separated it out explicitly, because I want to keep this on the simpler side, but that is a factor. Fuel cells help somewhat with this, because the DropShips do have fusion engines, but hydrogen is not an ideal fuel for mobile use.

I've mostly glossed over the ongoing need for maintenance, spare parts, and so on, but it's happening in the background. I've decided not to have WarShips ever miss combat because of refit needs, other than for explicit refits to a new design(which is a generous assumption, but simpler for gameplay). I'll do basically the same with small units, but the flipside of that is high maintenance needs. Getting that kind of uptime from rugged mechanical systems requires a lot of preventative maintenance, and that means a lot of parts going in and out. You won't literally consume that full amount of supplies, but you'll start running out of one type of spare part or another if you don't carry it.

Also, remember that lasers are a newfangled invention. Most combat still takes place with autocannons and missiles, which are heavy and bulky for your ammo supplies. In tabletop fights, the ammo needed for units is often fairly low, but in reality it'll probably err on the high side(look at tank shell counts IRL vs in game, for example). Most combat units are still tanks with multiple people in the crew, so that increases medical, food, and similar needs. For that matter, an infantry regiment is not purely guys with guns. For example, towed artillery is likely to be embedded in infantry formations, even if the self-propelled arty goes with the tanks. And artillery eats ammunition like nothing else.

Re TDF force structures, treat the values given as "regiment equivalents", if you like. 3 game-rules vehicle regiments is "really" 2 in-character TDF tank regiments. They'll still have the combat power and cargo needs of three standard vee regiments, to keep things simpler and more consistent, but feel free to write the fluff (or design the transports) as you see fit.

I don't claim this is precise. But for a good-enough, easy-enough system, I think it's reasonable. I'm open to suggestions, though.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1288 on: 19 November 2018, 12:17:17 »
It's worth noting that nuclear-powered vehicles are rare in this era, and ICE is the rule for anything except ASF(and, once Smegish builds a few, mechs). Fuel weight will be a massive part of the logistical need of a force,
Fusion sounds like a significant cost savings measure when taking into account transport costs.
Getting that kind of uptime from rugged mechanical systems requires a lot of preventative maintenance, and that means a lot of parts going in and out. You won't literally consume that full amount of supplies, but you'll start running out of one type of spare part or another if you don't carry it.
The central limit theorem should kick in fairly well at regimental scale.   For a 50% replacement item (the worst case), you would expect between 44 and 64 replacements in a campaign with probability ~95%.  Hence, overstocking by 20% should be fine.  If other regiments are involved in combat this could probably even be reduced to 10%.
Re TDF force structures, treat the values given as "regiment equivalents", if you like. 3 game-rules vehicle regiments is "really" 2 in-character TDF tank regiments. They'll still have the combat power and cargo needs of three standard vee regiments, to keep things simpler and more consistent, but feel free to write the fluff (or design the transports) as you see fit.
Right.  I'll assume your numbers are for standard regiments.

I'm open to suggestions, though.
Consider my suggestions:
  • Reduce tail for infantry by half so ~1050 total.
  • Halve cargo support for Mechs (~3000 tons).  The fuel issue for ICE CVs is there, but it isn't that severe.  A Bradley fighting vehicle apparently gets ~0.5 miles/kg so a ton of fuel is 500 miles of range, and 5 tons (=1/5th vehicle weight) is 2500 miles.  Given the existence of lift capacity for long haul travel this seems adequate suggesting 1400 tons of fuel.  Maybe 3/4 support (=4500 tons) for vehicles?
  • Support cargo is typically aboard transports and used on demand so it's possible for a regiment to move.
(Yes, I'm fully aware that excessive transport requirements are in the interest of TC given neighbors with larger budgets...)

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 447
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1289 on: 19 November 2018, 14:14:55 »
My maintenance % hasn't changed for the fleet itself, just cut back on the support elements (stations, fighters etc).

So are we assuming 27 combat platoons to a Inf regiment? (3 battalions of 3 companies of 3 platoons each?)
If so, I'm leaning towards giving space for a 4th battalion to allow for non-combat guys (medical, supply, drivers etc) which with rounding to avoid headaches gives me ~40 platoons of Inf Bays per Regiment...

Sound right, or am I way off?

May do similar rounding off to the nearest 10 bays for Vees and Mechs also, give a bit of space for spare machines/salvage/non-combat guys.
« Last Edit: 19 November 2018, 14:17:40 by Smegish »

 

Register