Warship Discussion: Potemkin class

[Caedis Animus]

I still want to load one of these up with Excaliburs. Just to have a stupidly large number of vehicles. (Read my sig.)

That said, if I'm ever in a game where that matters, it'd probably be finished in my 60s.

[Liam's Ghost]

Five medium naval PPCs would do the same damage as three heavy naval ppcs for the same mass. I think it even works out to the same heat.

In fact, the only real negative to the original TRO 2750 battery would be an increased crew requirement. In return you'd gain superior bracketing capability.

I kind of wonder if the person who codified the Potemkin in 3057 used the stats in the back of the old Battlespace book and just interpreted them as best as he could. I don't recall those stat blocks providing specific details on the weapons, just the bay types and the damage each bay did.

It might also be worth mentioning the Lyran Potemkin that served during the First Succession War during the raid of Luthien, completely loaded down with carrier and assault dropships. That had to be a terrifying sight.

[marauder648]

Actually, yes you're right :) 5 x Med NPPC's = 45 damage which is the same as the triple Heavy NPPC's and the heats identical along with the mass, as you said the only minor change would be a slight increase in crew but nothing absurd.  Hell why not put both batteries on, two quin Medium NPPC mounts and one triple would be a hell of a punch, and its not like she's lacking the cargo space to give up to do it.  But then again, that might very well encourage someone to actually try using the Potemkin as a battleship, and thats not what she's there for.

And yeah with the stats changes and the like, probably a case of winging it, we have to remember that there wasn't really any WarShip construction rules in place when they made them.

[UnLimiTeD]

Which is likely why the yhave so much cargo. Doesn't explain how little fuel they often carry, though.
The Potemkin is one interesting ship. I wonder what the original, smaller version would have looked like.
Probably actually less than half as capable, if one aims to keep protection similar. Couldn't recreate a Potemkin for the listed price, but I'm sure a smaller one would be cheaper.
Regarding construction:
How wide was that gravdeck actually? Having just one for so many people seems low, and I remember someone writing that was a shortcoming.
But if it runs the length of the hull, I got another question: How does that even work?

[marauder648]

The original art seemed to indicate the ship was broken into three rather distinct sections (which my Plog commission carries on) with a distinct engineering section aft, a kind of command section forwards with the admidships given over to cargo and passengers.  The grav deck would then be a big long drum running the inside of the ship surrounded by the outer hull which would mount the DropShips, weapons etc with the inner part, the Grav deck being a several hundred meter long building on its side (say 900 meters ish?).

I would assume that any loading of cargo etc would have to be done with the grav deck shut down before spinning up again.  Really the internal layout makes little sense and I'm just guestimating here.  Lots of SLDF ships have multiple grav decks and I have no idea how that would work.  The Potemkin's single grav deck is 90 meters in diameter although the books don't say how long it is, but looking at the size of the ship, its general layout, it would make sense its a rather long one going down a good bit the length of the hull.

[UnLimiTeD]

It's just not very structurally sound to have a very long section where the outer hull and core are not connected.

[marauder648]

*shrugs* I don't think they did physics when working this out :D

[Weirdo]

I have a love/hate relationship with the Potemkin. I love it because other ships win battles, this is what you use to win wars. I hate it because it kills threads. You always get someone talking about loading 25 of whatever their favorite DropShip class is into one (usually a carrier or PWS), and every single time, the post immediately before that was the last one worth reading. It is the physical incarnation of Godwin's Law.

[marauder648]

I have a love/hate relationship with the Potemkin. I love it because other ships win battles, this is what you use to win wars. I hate it because it kills threads. You always get someone talking about loading 25 of whatever their favorite DropShip class is into one (usually a carrier or PWS), and every single time, the post immediately before that was the last one worth reading. It is the physical incarnation of Godwin's Law.

But with this as its theme tune

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smepzzlgw1g

[Weirdo]

No sound on my phone, so no clicky. Besides, if the greatest piece of music ever conceived of by mankind(The Imperial March) can't excuse a homogenous Potemkin load, nothing can.

[Luciora]

If I remember, this was also nicknamed the corncob cruiser because of how the dropship collars were arranged, so, while nice commission, -1 for missing that bit of lore.

[marauder648]

The corncob comes about from the dropship positioning which was not really fully explained (or shown in the 2750) book, and the 3057 abomination had them just landing all over the ship which would have played unholy hell with any internal layout.

[marauder648]

I dunno Weirdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ_hgmGEhsw

works pretty good too, along with Dies Irae by Karl Jenkins :p

[Luciora]

Fair assessment.  It's not like anyone has real world space combat design experience to create these things properly.  :))

It is a really nice picture though. 

The corncob comes about from the dropship positioning which was not really fully explained (or shown in the 2750) book, and the 3057 abomination had them just landing all over the ship which would have played unholy hell with any internal layout.

[Sjhernan3060]

Marauder! Thank you so much for taking my request this was a great write up! More to say later but wanted to thank you.

[Fallen_Raven]

I have a love/hate relationship with the Potemkin. I love it because other ships win battles, this is what you use to win wars. I hate it because it kills threads. You always get someone talking about loading 25 of whatever their favorite DropShip class is into one (usually a carrier or PWS), and every single time, the post immediately before that was the last one worth reading. It is the physical incarnation of Godwin's Law.

I must test this theory! Load 25 Leopards on board for 25 simultaneous lance sized battles. Now the in-universe strategists have the same problems we do.  :)

[UnLimiTeD]

I'm not sure why it would be so great to have all docking collars on the same side.
Would seem to me that the giant cargo hold is best assessed from multiple directions, what with it only having one external door.
Also makes docking a whole lot less confusing if you don't have to double-check your on the right one and not ramming someone.

[glitterboy2098]

The corncob comes about from the dropship positioning which was not really fully explained (or shown in the 2750) book, and the 3057 abomination had them just landing all over the ship which would have played unholy hell with any internal layout.

actually the 3057 art appears to have the docking collars arranged radially, in rings down the length of the ship. there are 4 rings, so the pattern wouldn't be as simple as 5 per ring (you'd probably have to do 7,6,6,6), the implication appears to have been that the docking collars are staggered in layout, probably to simplify docking some when the ship is already loaded with more than a few dropships. a fully loaded Potemkin using such a layout would actually look rather like a corncob.

the IWM miniature went with this interpretation:


personally i rather like the 3057 art.. it looks more logical for its role, and isn't going to be be confused for.. well, any other TRO2750 SLDF warship. seriously, this thing in TRo2750 looks way too much like the TRO2750 Cameron, or an upsidedown TRO2750 congress. and or a Black Lion with the "fins" at a different angle.

unlike most of the TRo3057 art, this thing feels Btechy.. its basically a massive jumpship.. a long cylinder that huals rings of dropships. only this one is massive and has an actual transit drive.

as far as the bow indent goes.. personally i'd make that where the main cargo hatches and smallcraft bays are located. babylon 5 style, perhaps drawing on the old Cruiser Class Cruiser as the in universe inspiration.

[Hellraiser]

Five medium naval PPCs would do the same damage as three heavy naval ppcs for the same mass. I think it even works out to the same heat.

In fact, the only real negative to the original TRO 2750 battery would be an increased crew requirement. In return you'd gain superior bracketing capability.

I kind of wonder if the person who codified the Potemkin in 3057 used the stats in the back of the old Battlespace book and just interpreted them as best as he could. I don't recall those stat blocks providing specific details on the weapons, just the bay types and the damage each bay did.

It might also be worth mentioning the Lyran Potemkin that served during the First Succession War during the raid of Luthien, completely loaded down with carrier and assault dropships. That had to be a terrifying sight.

One has to wonder how difficult it was to look up TRO2750 & TRO3057 at the same time when finalizing the RS.
The horror of opening 2 books.
There really is no excuse for mistakes like that.

[Sjhernan3060]

I know one of these was one of two last jag warships. Could any one remind me when it got to huntress ( if it did)?

[Liam's Ghost]

One has to wonder how difficult it was to look up TRO2750 & TRO3057 at the same time when finalizing the RS.
The horror of opening 2 books.
There really is no excuse for mistakes like that.

Well, much like the poor Congress and Sovetski Soyuz, once it was codified in TRO3057, it became the truth. And there are some very obvious indications that not everybody involved in 3057 had access to all the relevant material.

I think the best thing we could hope for is to possibly get a variant that uses the original weapon configuration (if I were to fluff it I'd probably call it the earlier model which was changed to reduce manpower and support costs while keeping parts commonality with the McKenna). That sort of thing is how we got the Congress-D, after all.

I know one of these was one of two last jag warships. Could any one remind me when it got to huntress ( if it did)?

Never made it back to Huntress. It found leftovers from the Ice Hellions running around in their own Potemkin, then one ship was stripped to keep the other going (I can't remember which one off the top of my head). The hellions ended up with the Goliath Scorpions after that.

[Wrangler]

A variant we don't have stats for is the ArcShips.  Which number of Potemkins were converted by the renamed Diamond Sharks for their mobile home/factories for the post-Jihad era.

[Hellraiser]

I think they were basically just Potemkins w/ Cargo droppers (Behemoths, Mammoths, Mules, etc etc) attached to them permanently & with some of the cargo bays turned into Factory/Barracks space.

I assume we won't see those stats because every one of them is different from each other.

[drakensis]

But, flush with funds following the Reunification War the Admiralty and SLDF could afford the huge price of these massive ships and 106 would be constructed with the first leaving the slips in 2611 and the last being completed in 2871

I suspect there may be a slight error there. It seems unlikely Potemkins were in production through both the First and Second Succession Wars.

[UnLimiTeD]

Damn, so I actually had the dates right in my head. I wondered that, too, but thought "well, maybe they actually were. I dunno where the yards are, maybe comstar....".
^^

[Maingunnery]

I suspect there may be a slight error there. It seems unlikely Potemkins were in production through both the First and Second Succession Wars.

The Clans perhaps?

[marauder648]

Oops! I mean..err..well done! You spotted the error and passed the test to see if you was really reading the article.

Here have...um...

err..

This chibi Hunchback!



And yes it was an error :D  Although the date of 2781 still makes little actual sense as this was AFTER the Amaris Civil War, when they were apparently scrapping them.  So yay for lore contradictions. 

[Maingunnery]

Well if one is taking parts of crippled Potemkins and making 'new' ones with them,
 then it can be seen as both scrapping the crippled ones and building new ones. 

[Jellico]

One has to wonder how difficult it was to look up TRO2750 & TRO3057 at the same time when finalizing the RS.
The horror of opening 2 books.
There really is no excuse for mistakes like that.

They couldn't keep the Thera and Conqueror's stats straight between the Field Manuals, AT2:RS, and TRO:3067. Hopefully we have them finally bedded down with TRO3067U. It didn't help Heavy Metal Aero recorded the stats incorrectly and added a bunch on non-canon extras like food.

You think it would be easy but hard experience has shown that large craft are an order of magnitude harder to fact check and edit. There are so many points of failure.

[Fallen_Raven]

Do we know if the Potemkin was used for transporting to the frontlines, or was it for strategic reshuffling? Being able to rotate battalions between garrisons near the front seems useful, maybe even useful enough to dedicate an armed mega freighter.